Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pomosexual

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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. The earlier opinions could not take into account the many sources provided by Lawrence, and must therefore be evaluated cautiously. Sandstein (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pomosexual

Delete or transwiki - This article is a neologism, and it cites no reliable sources Laytonsmith14 (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the biggest point here is that the article is defining a neologism. When putting the term through a google search, the only results are things like urban dictionary, and the like. The book is a bit more reliable, however it still is not a very peer-reviewed book. If more sources become available, then I think it should be put back up, but with the current state of the word, I don't think that it is ready for wikipedia. Laytonsmith14 (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep ~~or transwiki~~: Per Laytonsmith14. In it's current form, the article is an attempt to define a neologism. Unless more content could be added, I feel that this entry would be more suitable for Wiktionary. —Mears man (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Aleta pointed out below, there is an actual book cited in the article about the subject. I must have missed it before because it was with the external links, but I do believe that this adds some staying power to the article, seeing as there is a published work about it. While the article could still use some work, I feel that there is potential for improvement, so I have changed my position to "weak keep". If the article is deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia I still feel that the information should be transferred to Wiktionary. I would hate to see this flat-out deleted. —Mears man (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an additional source and started a "Criticisms" section. Just letting everyone know that more I was able to turn up a bit more information on the subject.—Mears man (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dropping the "weak" from my keep (I'm amazed by how much my mind has changed on this over the past few days). My main concern was the apparent lack of available sources to confirm the notability of the subject, but Lawrence Cohen has done an excellent job of locating them below. The article will need a bit of work, but I do not believe it is beyond redemption. —Mears man (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - It is an article about a neologism, but not created for the article. It does cite the book where the term was made more prominent. ~~(That should be moved into a references section rather than in the external links.)~~ Aleta ^Sing 14:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the book into a references section. Aleta ^Sing 14:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dropping the "weak" part of my keep as per Lawrence's source finds below. Now we need to add citations to the article! Aleta ^Sing 23:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 18:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- Aleta ^Sing 18:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and transwiki if they will accept the material. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism.--Doc^g 11:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neo _→AzaToth 12:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yopie 18:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

Note Not that this will have much bearing in an AfD, but this article is older than the accounts of anyone who wants to delete it. Not that I am any better, but there is something I don't like about people joining a group and then lobbying to undo the efforts made by people who were there before them. A less reasonable editor might think that you shouldn't have joined in the first place if you were not ready to accept preexistent content and editors. Jackaranga (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's the boldest argumentum ad antiquitatem I've ever heard. But as Cyprian of Carthage remarked a very long time ago: "Custom is often only the antiquity of error." Oh, and since I've been on Wikipedia significantly longer than you, you'd best not argue, right? ;).--Doc^g 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're getting at Jackaranga, but it is my understanding that all editors are welcome to contribute to these discussions (if I'm wrong about this, someone please enlighten me). That includes you too though, Jackaranga. Would you care to share your thoughts as to whether the article should be kept, deleted, or something else? —Mears man (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Not that the notability guideline seemed to exist when this article was created, but yeah it fails the notability guideline, with the only available sources being user contributed, no press coverage etc. However the term is mentioned in other articles, and it's odd that the article has been around for over 4 years, if the decision is to delete, I think it would be nice to move it to the user space instead. It's hard to believe that nobody noticed this article should be deleted in 4 years, so I am doubting my own judgment, as well as that of other people here. Jackaranga (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Changing to keep, seeing all the sources below, good work. Jackaranga (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of credible sources. Good point about the creation date: April 1, 2004. Congratulations to user:Popefauvexxiii for what I suspect may be our longest surviving April Fool's joke. That's Life!Unless, of course, you know different... Guy (Help!) 22:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're suggesting this is a hoax, it's not. The book cited is real. You can check out the preview Google books has. Aleta ^Sing 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not an april fool's joke, its a real word, the article is gaining content as we discuss, and while it may be tentatively categorizable as a neologism, its gaining momentum in the collective consciousness all the time. Interestingly, this isnt the first time somebody has misinterpreted edits or comments ive made on April 1st as a put-on. --PopeFauveXXIII (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - terrible sources. Not well defined. Not even a good neologism. Cary Bass ^demandez 22:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As unlikely as it seemed, we have a lot of sources that predate the creation of the article here on Wikipedia. More sources coming. NY Times, Times of India, The Independent, Asia Africa Intellegience Wire, Panoram (Italian), Sacramento Bee, Channel News Asia, Times of India again, NY Times again. That's multiple non-trivial coverage and mentions of the neologism, and international in scope to boot. Subject of printed books; and Gay news sources. I think it's a clear keep per policy. There are still more sources than even this. Lawrence § t/e 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Lawrence Cohen above.--Gloriamarie (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks. A lot of links != evidence this is an encyclopedic topic. Let's look at some of them.
times of India. I quote "according to andrologist Sudhakar Krishnamurthy, pomosexuality is just another ‘nomenclatural fad’." = NEOLOGISM
The NYT article (on metrosexuality) mentions the term in a list with NOTHING SAID ABOUT IT. I can't access the paysites, so can you show me a source that actually helps here?--Doc^g 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A whole chapter here on it, an entire 1998 article, here, another reference in a print book work, the BBC, again the book that popularized the term, here again. Yes, it's a lot of links, but the term is ultimately notable as a label and growing more so. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge there does not seem notable enough 3rd party reliable source coverage to necesitate a stand alone article - not exactly sure where it should go, though. Perhaps in an article on the book it emerged from? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It's the title of a book. We do have articles about the authors, merge to either of those. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Lawrence of Wiki. He has provided more than sufficient reliable sources to support notability and verifiability, including an article in a peer reviewed sexology journal, a full book about the subject, a respected monthly magazine, several newspapers, and lots more. I might note that there were several vote changes due to Lawrence's hard work. I'm adding some of the sources as we speak. — Becksguy (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2008 (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.