Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heterosexual couple

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Heterosexuality. Wifione ^Message 11:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heterosexual couple[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like a dictionary definition. It consists entirely of a personal commentary on a hard-to-define entity (as seems to be the style of the author...) and is totally unreferenced. The relevant material is covered by various other articles. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Full agreement with nom. AV3000 (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Full agreement with the noms reasonings. He iro 02:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~ - I need time to clarify this hard-to-define entity. Clearly I've bitten off more than I can chew here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads like prose, completely unreferenced. Czolgolz (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Encyclopaedia articles are supposed to read like prose. Uncle G (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Heterosexuality. Nothing can possibly be said about the former that would not be covered by the latter. bd2412 T 03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. Wikipedia is not for dictionary definitions. Sparthorse (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. I am happy to see that the term POSSLQ is still around from the See Also links though. Carrite (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find a suitable redirect target. This is a plausible search term and it should not be a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 16:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Simply delete and redirect to Heterosexuality. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect as above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect: I'm changing my input from 'userfy' to 'redirect', per S Marshall: it's a plausible search term; but I don't see a future for this article as a separate topic. Let's wait till a section in Heterosexuality gets too big for its britches. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced OR. Dictionary entry. Of no encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heterosexuality. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.