Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demisexuality


 * 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   delete. Without a clear definition verified by coverage in reliable sources, we would be doing our readers a disservice by redirecting or merging this. No prejudice against recreation as redirect in the future iff more substantial sources are found in the future that clearly define this term. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Demisexuality

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:DICDEF and neologism. Sources are mostly unreliable and spurious from what I can see. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge into Asexuality, but rewrite it and provide more adequate sources. The term does appear to be in moderate use based on this Google search, but probably not enough for its own article.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 08:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Coverage in multiple secondary news sources, and even a scholarly academic source. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you give the reference please? I saw nothing on Google Scholar.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I couldn't find much in the way of references either. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here's an academic scholarly source:
 * . &mdash; Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I did locate that on GScholar — it's the only hit for "demisexuality" — but discounted it, since it is not about this topic, it merely mentions it: "In addition to the choices supplied by the survey questions, respondents added pansexuality, asexuality, demisexuality".  That does not seem to be significant coverage.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'd delete on the slightly more academic equivalent to "things made up at school today" (per Cusop Dingle - if it is a real concept, where are the references?). But you could twist my arm into redirecting to asexuality and merging relevant content into a para there.  I really think overall though it seems well short of being able to demonstrate the necessary notability. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete All we know from the academic source is that it is some kind of sexual orientation self-identification. In the absence of further reliably sourced information, we don't even know where to merge or redirect.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2011 (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.