Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Übersexual


 * 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 of the debate was keep (or at worst no consensus). bainer (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Übersexual
Non notable neologism, unverifiable, and possibly a hoax. Pburka 00:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete /merge with metrosexual. Only gets 458 unique Google hits. -Willmcw 00:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep I've heard this word used several times on the radio. Mentioned in WorldNetDaily news [ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46788 in this article]. Fox News uses it in this article. NBC News uses it in this article. You mean Wikipedia is not going to be a reference for people trying to find the meaning to these words? &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 141.198.128.25 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -Willmcw 01:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Curiously, all three of those articles were published within a few weeks of the publication of the book which coined this word. Publicity, perhaps? Pburka 01:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Willmcw User:Ejrrjs says What? 01:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Metrosexual. 49,200 Google hits without the umlauts .  This term is used in American culture and has been mentioned by established media sources.  But at this juncture it's just a dicdef by itself... it should be mentioned as a notable spinoff of Metrosexual, and redirected there for curious people searching for it.  --W.marsh 02:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Willmcw. Movementarian 03:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - valid description of sexuality. I've heard it used a lot when boasting. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 03:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is fine. (Bjorn Tipling 07:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC))
 * Merge to Metrosexual per above. Does Wikitionary have this word? Saberwyn - 10:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ubersexual Uncle G 11:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So suggesting a transwiki would be pretty pointless. Saberwyn - 07:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Metrosexual, as per above. D-Rock 10:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's a real term, I have seen it mentioned in Finnish newspapers weeks before reading this Wikipedia article. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 11:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've seen this used quite often, and it absolutely shouldn't be merged with Metrosexual. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 16:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - This neologism is entering the mainstream and I think it is notable. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I have heard this being used more and more recently, however this article needs some verifiable sources. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace with soft redirect to wiktionary to insure that advertising for Future of Men doesn't again grow in this spot. Also, as a note to Zordrac, Bjorn, JIP,  Nazgjunk, and malo: Personal testimony of editors does not count as verification.  brenneman (t) (c)  22:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * keep please this article is fine Yuckfoo 01:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with metrosexual. 132.162.213.109 01:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into Metrosexual, but do not delete it. -- H005 14:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Open question: When someone on the internet creates a neologism, it's AFD. Should it be any different when that someone gets it published in a book?  I don't know the answer to this question, but I am certain that it's the same as the answer to whether Wiki should delete this article. --Mareino 15:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What's AFD? -- H005 17:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "AFD" means "article for deletion" or "articles for deletion." Maybe I used it incorrectly, but when I wrote "it's AFD", I was trying to clarify that these sorts of articles should be deleted, but the words themselves should not be deleted or censored from our speech. --Mareino 17:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well then, I don't think the mere fact that "someone on the internet created a neologism" can justify a deletion - the question should rather be for the likelihood that people would want to look it up in Wikipedia, which is related to the question how often it is used (and not or not fully understood by the audience). Of course the chances of a neologism to become used regularly are better when spread through an often-quoted book than through a poorly-read website or newsgroup. But the medium itself shouldn't matter. He're I'd say press coverage is so high that chances for regular look-ups are good. This might be different in five years - words come and go. But for the time being the article should stay. -- H005 20:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. A well known word that becoming as ubiquitous as Metrosexual was a year ago.  Neologism, by my read, is a word invented in creating the article.  The objection does not deal with new words/concepts that were simply created recently.  Otherwise blog should be tossed out.  Jtmichcock 01:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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.