Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaghetti girl


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Spaghetti girl

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject's significance is not established and is a clear neologism. Among the "significant coverage" are IMDb trivia, Someecards, An anonymous Yahoo!-style answer at Chachacha, Urban Dictionary, and a blog. The other references aren't indicated to address the subject, rather the broader concept of sexual marginalization and such. I would probably nominate for CSD but I couldn't find an appropriate category. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * delete sourcing is terrible on this one --- urban dictionary? Didn't find much else. Although, if we kept this article, it would serve as a RS for some lazy journalist, who would then write it up in a RS - and presto citogensis - actually this may be a reason to speedy this out of existence before that happens...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with speedy delete, but which crit? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Clear WP:NEO that fails WP:GNG. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 08:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pretty clearly fails WP:NEO.  Google results are limited to user-generated content and blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Neologism and dictionary definition (meaning plus etymology is a dictionary definition). Wikipedia articles are about concepts, not words. So if we can redirect it to an article about the alleged hostility of some lesbians to bisexuals/pansexuals, or about women dabbling in sex with other women, I guess there might be an argument for that, but that's not essential. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Colapeninsula, we have many Wikipedia articles that are about words, and, WP:Dictionary allows it, but, like WP:Dictionary states in its When word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject section, "As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." Flyer22 (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to Lesbian, not very notable neologism. Slang terms are a dime a dozen (like clichés). Paul B (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, I'm not seeing a good merge target, or content worthy of that merge. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: If this article is merged, then the best candidates for merging it are the Situational sexual behavior and the Heteroflexibility articles. Like I indicated on my talk page, there are many WP:Reliable sources out there for the situational sexual behavior topic, though the Situational sexual behavior article needs a lot of work to get it in good shape. I also note the Bi-curious article, but bi-curiosity is more so about romantic and/or sexual curiosity than engaging in sexual activity with the same (or opposite) sex on an occasional basis. And, as noted on the Bi-curious talk page, the Bi-curious article should be merged with the Questioning (sexuality and gender) article. That stated, merging the spaghetti girl topic with any of the first three articles I named in this paragraph can be problematic...per the WP:Synthesis policy. If the sources for the spaghetti girl topic are not using the terms situational sexual behavior (or situational homosexuality), heteroflexibility (or heteroflexible) or b-icurious (or other variations of that term), it can be considered WP:Synthesis to include these concepts in those articles. On a side note, I mentioned here at WP:LGBT that I think this article is a part of a WP:Student assignment. Flyer22 (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are good redirection choices, but I don't think there's anything to merge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Situational sexual behavior with no merge. Kaimahi (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete (not merge/redirect) - this is clearly the domain of urbandictionary, which is cited. I pulled up the only two reliable sources in the list (the first two), and neither one of them even mentions this term. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  13:53, 4 March 2014 (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.