Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heteroflexible (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Heteroflexible
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Neologism. Initial Google returns are Urban Dictionary and mentions in Salon, but nothing substantial enough to warrant anything more than a dictionary definition with somewhat sketchy sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there should be something we can merge this into. bd2412  T 02:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree that there is insufficient third-party coverage for a page. In terms of merging, perhaps something could be included in the page on pansexuality and/or heterosexuality. Leoniceno (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, what about all the Google Scholar results? Abductive  (reasoning) 05:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Okay, it's no FA, but I at least turned it into an appropriately-referenced stub.  There are dozens more functional sources out there; this could actually become a really good article with concerted effort.  It certainly didn't need to come to AFD.  As a procedural note, assuming this AFD closes keep, it should be moved to heteroflexibility, over the existing redirect there (to situational sexual behavior), in order to satisfy the manual of style preference for articles to appear under their noun form.  Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Delete - Non-notable neologism, information already covered in bisexuality. Best suited for Urban Dictionary. Visions of the South Park boys in Metrosexual garb flash in my head. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC) See below. Changed: Carrite (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense intended, but did you base this !vote on the state of the article when nominated or its current condition? As it is now referenced to nearly a dozen sources, primarily scholarly journals, dating back to 2005, I would neither consider it a neologism nor "best suited for Urban Dictionary". Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Journal of Bisexuality in 2006 indicates: "Some sexuality educators have coined two very descriptive terms: heteroflexible for those who self-identify as hetero- sexual but have same-sex attractions and/or behaviors; and homo- flexible for those who self-identify as lesbians or gay men and have other-sex attractions..." At what point does a neologism become an accepted part of the language? Still a neologism. That said, running the phrase in Google scholar does indeed indicate a reasonably widespread use of the term, so I'll flip my recommendation accordingly, being Deletoflexible here... Carrite (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Whatever this article might have been at the time of nomination, it has been fixed now. References are entirely appropriate and extensive.  Ebikeguy (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep; the article appears to be well referenced, and complaints of neologism appear unfounded. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep it gets coverage in gnews, gbooks and academic articles in gscholar. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2010 (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.