The contents of the Lumbersexual page were merged into Lumberjack on 24 January 2017 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lumbersexual redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
This redirect is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this redirect, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
This article will probably be deleted or redirected. I recommend a soft-redirect to Wiktionary. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Completely coincidentally, I just searched for "lumbersexual" and forked over the content from the Lumberjack article, believing a separate article was justifiable based on the number of sources talking about the neologism. Only after forking the content did I see the redirect discussion. Yes, the article needs to be expanded, and I added some external links for additional context, but surely there are enough sources to justify an article. ---Another Believer(Talk) 00:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Insertcleverphrasehere, similar articles were tagged for notability even though the articles themselves showed in-depth discussion of the terms. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Erik Then those tags were inappropriate as well, the policy in question can be found here: WP:NOTTEMPORARY. It is pretty clear on the subject. In any case, per my link, there IS ongoing coverage of this topic, so that policy isn't even needed here. InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}