Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novosexual


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Novosexual

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Internet neologism. This term appears in various social media, but I can't find any sources that meet the criteria spelled out in WP:RS Looie496 (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - via what Wikipedia is not WP:NAD, past references referred to misc sites like blogs and social media which aren't reliable.  A dog 104  Talk to me 00:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I concur with the above.  Search results turn up nothing but social media, and I find it highly unlikely that this term is used in print media.  It's way too soon for this neologism to have an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the above as well; nothing more than a neologism online. Is seemingly coined by one person who seems to be attempting to sell the term. No references whatsoever. Almost no results in social media, none in print media. An attempt to derive from the Latin expression de novo which does not mean frequent change or anything dependent on mood etymologically. Also, the flag is a crudely drawn symbol created by one individual on a tumblr page. No official sign, website, or organization. Seems to be fair for deletion. It seems to be an attempt to convey an abstract idea with no substantiated source, nothing more. Magic1551 (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - the only sources that I could find are Urban Dictionary and blogs. Too soon. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism lacking reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:08, 9 December 2015 (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.