Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retrosexual

Retrosexual was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus &mdash; keep. Cool Hand Luke  21:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is an non-exsistant word


 * Non-existant? If people use it, it exists.
 * &mdash; Tlogmer


 * Hmm...My vote is a Move to Wiktionary. The word obviously has some meaning attached to it, but it is not notable enough for its own encyclopedia article. &mdash; [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 15:57, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. This looks a decent stub at least. -- Taku 23:53, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Exists in todays Metro, so its exists as much as the horrid Metrosexual, and that gets a place in Wikipedia. Mlk 01:09, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Another lost VfD. Keep. Cool Hand Luke  05:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Non-existent? The word gets 5,160 google hits, from various kinds of sites. Judging from those, it seems a notable term, and the article certainly looks acceptable to me. So: Keep because of notability and quality of article. Sietse 07:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * KEEP. This term has been in common use in the Australian media recently.--Gene_poole 08:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep - --Cyprus2k1 09:28, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep with great disquiet. It's still way too new and unstable for me, and the article has too much speculation.  It starts with documentary fact of first use and meaning in that context, but then it goes on, Wiki style, to try to cover other bases, only without reference.  Geogre 13:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Neologism. --Improv 17:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. - WP should not be a tool for generating/popularizing concepts, fads, or trends. --Huge colin 18:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Terms such as these are a dime a dozen, and are more transitory than isopropyl alcohol rubbed on a cactus.  -- WOT 18:12, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep! This seems to be a valid term...sources are sited! Its as valid as 23 skidoo. --Jon, Conqueror of Men 18:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Metrosexual, since retrosexual seems to exist purely as a reaction to the term/concept metrosexual. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Trollminator 00:13, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep with possibility for further encyclopedic description. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  08:53, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep: stop listing valid articles please, -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   20:51, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

I doth say Keep --cuiusquemodi 02:48, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Merge into Metrosexual and redirect. Alan MB 23:22, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.