This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
One of the most egregious cases of advertising I've seen here
The Sections § is especially outrageous, I think the entire article should be nominated for speedy deletion. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
An article so important should not be deleted
Once again, some want to delete our existence. The usual idea: "We do not exist", With so much human diversity that there is in the world - "we are not and cannot be part of human diversity-We are not human and it is impossible." These are some of the usual remarks levelled against us. Why do breeders get so offended? We also live, we breathe like they do, most of us are happy, and most of all we exist just like other humans exist. And there is also some degree of variation in our community as in all communities. "When you are gay you know it, and when you are heterosexual you know it, and when you are asexual you also know it." There is no doubt about it. I'm sorry about whatever miscommunications or misunderstandings arise because of kind of diversity-but that's just how it is. Get used to it. Think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you so self absorbed or whatever that you can't distinguish this entity you're trying to push from the general phenomenon of asexuality? This is an encyclopædia, not a directory of community services. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
As you will see on the main article namespace, I have suggested this article be merged in with the main Asexuality article. I can't think of any criteria that would involve speedy deleting it, but currently nothing in the article is substantiated with any third party sources, so it's been at the risk of just about anyone coming along, nominating it for deletion via AfD, and getting wiped. By redirecting it into the main article, it has a better chance of nothing being lost, as the community appears to have been mentioned occasionally in news articles. --Ritchie333(talk) 16:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)