Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonbinary Sexuality


 * 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. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  18:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Nonbinary Sexuality

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Added this one based on a A11 speedy request by the nominator. Regards So  Why  15:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Added this one based on a A11 speedy request by the nominator. Regards So  Why  15:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Topic appears to be WP:OR by the author. None of the sources mention this or related terms (nonbinary sexuality or nonpolar sexuality). The article states the term was coined by Emma Frye, and the article's creator's name suggest some sort of COI with this person. This user has created a handful of articles all related to Emma Frye.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep searches through Google News and Google Scholar show lots of usage of the term. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm only seeing a few academic sources using the term and some blogs like tumblr. But I see no widespread or notable use of the term. If I'm missing sources, can you please provide a few?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Use in the academic community is enough to establish notability. The term does not have to be part of popular culture. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Whether people want to admit it or not, this is a somewhat commonly discussed concept these days. Obviously the article needs work, or at the very least merging. Trillfendi (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: The only part that's original content is the unsourced opening paragraph. (The remainder was copied from Bisexuality.) The content in the paragraph doesn't match the title of the article - the body is talking about "nonpolar" and the title is "nonbinary". We already have article Genderqueer that covers the topic of non-binary and Google-searching the term "non-polar sexuality" pulls up no hits at all. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but genderqueer is about gender indentity, this article refers to sexuality. Two different things. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: a duplicate article exists at Nonpolar sexuality. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which the nominator had tagged for speedy deletion. I declined it since both should be discussed here. I'll add it to this AFD. Regards So  Why  15:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whatever becomes of the Afd for Nonbinary Sexuality, the term Nonpolar sexuality should be neither an article, nor a redirect. The term is invisible on the web, as is its purported author, Emma Frye.
 * Emma Frye:
 * Mathglot (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Possible OR without RSes that this is an acknowledged term and independent entity. Unclear why this needs to be a separate article rather than the term being introduced in bisexuality or pansexuality. Reywas92Talk 00:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete with possible recreation as a redirect to Genderqueer: The scope is unclear, since the title states "Nonbinary" yet the lead begins with "Nonpolar". Given that the article Genderqueer has been treated as essentially synonymous with non-binary, a redirect to Genderqueer seems a plausible search term. I don't think we need two articles on such difficult to separate concepts: the elder article should be expanded and developed with consensus until size or clearly distinct concept warrants splitting into a new article. As this article is currently structured, it overlaps too many existing concepts to stand alone, and has a strong feeling of original synthesis. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2019 (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.