Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unlabeled sexual orientation


 * 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   No consensus whatsoever. I would not be surprised, however, to see this back at AFD before long unless it is cleaned up and improved. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Unlabeled sexual orientation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

POV fork of Pomosexual. Page was created as a redirect to Pomosexual by and then branched out of Pomosexual by the same user - a user who has been blocked previously for the POV edit warring regarding similar issues with Sexual orientation. Template talk:Sexual orientation contains a wealth of related information. - ℅ &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 06:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This article was previously deleted via Articles for deletion/Anthrosexual in which during that Afd, Anthrosexual was moved to Undefined sexuality, which after deletion now redirects to the article subject of this Afd. Same creator of each article.


 * Comment Actually, that was a very different article. Lady  of  Shalott  18:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Undefined sexuality could possibly be different than Unlabeled sexual orientation? - ℅ &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 19:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anthrosexual is different then an unlabeled sexual orientation..... it's kinda in the name.... anthroseuxal literly means "human sexual".... your atracted to humans.... it's more to imply you see past gender, and see just people, not men women, or other genders. Not to be rude, but you are very lacking when it comes to topics in the WHOLE extent of LGBT community.... I'm sorry, but the world is no longer "gay, straight and bi".... there are MANY labels out there. Maybe because i am younger, i am not burdened by a 20th century mind set. But like i said, not to be rude, but you are lacking in the more broader sense of sexual orientation. --cooljuno411 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't need a lesson on the difference. You moved Anthrosexual to Undefined sexuality during the Anthrosexual Afd, did you not? And then Undefined sexuality was deleted per that Afd, was it not? Case closed. And let's keep the borderline personal attacks to ourselves, please? Thanks. - ℅ &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 20:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, changing your opinions does not show weakness, it shows that you are doing nothing but advancing oneself. YOu have to consolidate your assests you plan to protect, then allow them to bloom when they are tolerated.--cooljuno411 01:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ASE, I made my comment based upon looking at the last version of Anthrosexual before it was deleted. Despite the similarity in names of some versions of the article, the content was very different. (I'll be glad to userfy a copy for anyone who wants to see it; drop me a note on my talk page if you want it.) Lady  of  Shalott  02:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. - ℅ &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 18:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete — the contents of this article could theoretically be merged or somehow woven into other more appropriate places, but overall it smells an awful lot like Original Research. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 06:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merged back into Pomosexual where it came from in the first place would be acceptable, since the 2 articles are practically the same thing. - ℅ &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 06:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On a technical note you should not propose a merge if you also are proposing deletion, since a merge is a form of keep. The only time merge and delete is acceptable is if the redirect that would be left behind is objectionable, since it causes issues with maintaining the edit history. Gigs (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasn't proposing a merge. Just saying I'd accept one if that be the consensus. - ℅ &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 06:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork. I see no need to merge since there is very little worth saving. Gigs (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, Not POV, cleanly referenced on the sexual orientation article itself with references from the American Phycological Association. "Though people may use other labels, or -->none at all<, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual." The article itself even has many references, this POV is a joke. Pomosexual is a coined term, which in itself causes cotroversy because it itself is a label. The generic fact of not labeling your sexual orientation is not burdand with the label conundrum. I think the nominator of this deletion thinks too much in the 20th century.... i'm sorry, but just because your uneducated on topic, doesn't mean it is POV. Read the article, there is even scientific surveys that involve unlabeled sexual orientations.--cooljuno411 07:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, there are notable people who do not identify with a sexual Orientation, look at the article. When Aubrey O'Day was asked if she was bisexual, she replied I DON'T LABEL MY SEXUAL OREINTATION, not I'm pomosexual. As i have said before, pomosexual and unlabeled sexual orienation are similar, but the fact that pomosexual intails a label, makes them different. Just how there is a difference between saying "i have sex with men" and "i am homosexual"--cooljuno411 07:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, i've updated the article saying "An unlabeled sexual orientation is different from pomosexuality because pomosexuality finds it's agenda via a label, which can cause controversy and confusion."--cooljuno411 07:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is unsouced and totally original reseach. Just saying... - ℅ &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 07:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this sufficiant? ". "Pomosexual I would not include because it's a label for people...who...reject ...labels...and my brain hurts. It's a political term which fails to describe anyone's orientation at all, only their attitude towards having it described. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)"" - You can find many comments like this if you look through the history of the sexual orientation template talk.--cooljuno411 07:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You seriously want to use another Wikipedia user's opinion as a source? - ℅ &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 07:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's more of a j/k to satire what i am talking about....--cooljuno411 09:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference from Planned Parenthood mentions the word "unlabeled" at the bottom of a long list of words which refer somehow to various nuances of sexual orientations, and at best it seems like a technicality. I have been unable to find any scholarly works or any kind of textbook references whatsoever to "no sexual orientation", "neutral sexual orientation", or "undefined sexual orientation" which present this categorically as functionally equivalent to other identified orientations such as homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or any of the other myriad GLBT flavors on that Baskin-Robbins chart. There are definitely references (and plenty of books, journals, mentions, etc) about "asexual" people, and about people whose sexual orientations are somehow ambiguous or unidentified… but that doesn't mean we can invent a new category here. To do so would be Original Research. Perhaps some experts in sexology with access to textbooks and academic libraries could illuminate the topic further for us; but until i see evidence that "unlabeled" or "neutral" or "undefined" are actual sexual orientations, i refuse to give them the same weight in our lists. Thanks ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 06:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, i recommend people do a quick search on google scholar. IT will turn up many articles containing studies that involve people with unlabeled sexual orientations. --cooljuno411 07:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Google Scholar yields exactly zero hits for "unlabeled sexual orientation .  Google Books also produces no examples of the term .  It's not mentioned on Google News, either  Edward321 (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong Delete I took the nominator's Google challenge. (See my comment above for links.) Google Scholar has never heard of the term. Neither have Google Books or Google News. When you add in Teledidonix's and Uncle G's showing that the sources for the article do not use the term either it is clear that this article is original research. Edward321 (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Not everyone identifies by sexual orientation, and this would add extra diversity to the sexual orientation series of articles. It could use more academic sources, but should be given time to grow. If pomo- is too redundant with this article to have both, it would be better to have this one since it is inclusive enough to cover more identities/concepts which do not fit into the sexual orientation labels. (Not that I am voting to merge pomo, since that would be out of the scope of this AfD). Article creator's previous articles should not be reason to pre-judge this article. Wikignome0529 (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Striking former comments, I would expect some of the childish comments/behavior on here from article creator (based on previous incidents, though people can & do change so I did not pre-judge him or his article based on that), but some of the rest of the regulars here (including nom) should know better. I do not care whether this article stays or dies via stabbing with a bloody spork. Happy editing, all. :-) (no response to this message necessary) Wikignome0529 (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's try and keep the personal attacks out of this. Thanks. - ℅ &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 18:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Quote from the American Phycological Association: ""Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all."" - quote from the American Phycological Association--cooljuno411 07:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So where are all of these people discussed as a category? And what name is given to that category?  Please cite sources.  At least one of the sources currently cited has been found (by Teledildonix314, above) to have no discussion of this purported category at all.  A second source, that you've also cited here, does not appear to discuss this category, but merely mentions, in 4 words, the absence of categorization.  Three more sources are quotes from people refusing to be publicly categorized, and again do not discuss this category.  Where are your sources discussing this? Uncle G (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to Pomosexual. Not using a label for something does not make it a distinct category suitable for an encylopedia. Popmosexual already covers the sexuality of people that prefer not to be boxed into a category, having a seperate unlabeled article is to the detriment of interested readers. Should we also have a "None of your business orientation" article, but that is a common reply to the question? Or a "Why does it matter orientation" article? The fact that a few people respond to questions aboutsexuality by refusing to label themselves does not make that their orientation, it means that whatewver their sexual preference, they don't want to be labelled.YobMod 13:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This article by this creator has been deleted before, though the creator changed the article name during that AfD discussion. Edward321 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment as an outside observer this looks like a discussion as to whether The Artist Formerly Known as Prince should be a separate article from Prince (musician). -Drawn Some (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Pomosexual and possibly Absexual, Pansexuality or others not listed in the Sexual orientation info box, into a new page with a more general name. Perhaps something like "Less commonly discussed sexual identities"? Cnilep (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral/Oppose Merge. I don't agree that this term is synonymous with Pomosexual (and, even if it is, this article should be the merge target, not the neologism) - this isn't, IMO, a simple content fork.  The differences between the terms are explained in the articles, and I consider this to be a valid difference.  The issue, as I see it, is whether or not we have adequate sourcing for this term in itself, rather than sourcing for the general statement "Many people choose not to identify with a particular orientation".  This aspect of the article could be improved, so I'm neutral on whether it should be kept.  However, if it's deleted, it should be _deleted_, not redirected to an article on a different subject. Tevildo (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * merge  pomosexual into here,as the more general term. Any postulated difference can be discussed in the article DGG (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pomosexual is the term widely used in academia so why would you want to merge it into Unlabeled sexual orientation, the term that nothing verifiably supports? - ℅ &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 18:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an academic work and so it is our policy to avoid academic jargon and prefer plain English. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I know as the nom it's a given.. but I'll say that, as has been pointed out, this article was previously deleted via Articles for deletion/Anthrosexual in which during that Afd, Anthrosexual was moved to Undefined sexuality. Same creator of each article. We don't circumvent Afd by renaming articles. Had I known about the Anthrosexual/Undefined sexuality Afd, I would have prodded this article as recreation of deleted material. Without better academia and worldly distinction between the two, this can only be seen as original research. - ℅ &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 18:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that teh article may have been deleted before doesn't mean anything.... the article Jeffree Star was deleted many of times.... is an article now though.... so that argument is a foolish one. I am personally appalled that someone of LGBT community would nominate this for deletion..... I, a person who does not label their sexual orientation, feels apart of the LGBT community, and feels betrayed by a fellow member.--cooljuno411 19:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I told you on your talk page that it was nothing personal.. so you should assume good faith and leave it like that. - ℅ &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 19:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Juno, a previous deletion is very relevant. If a deleted article is created such that it is substantially the same, it can be speedily deleted as per WP:CSD. However, this article is different enough that I don't think it applies in this case. Lady  of  Shalott  03:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 *  Note:"History lesson" by Cooljuno411 that was here, has been moved to this Afd's talk page. 
 * STRONG SUPPORT KEEPING ARTICLE: cooljuno's argument is the one that is valid. All agruments halted for the deletion of the article are simply showing the ignorance of the person writing that statement. Having an unlabeled sexual orientation is in practice, people do it. So why are we having a big deal???--03:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StealthyVlad (talk • contribs)
 * Duly noted by Cooljuno's friend. (sock? meat?) - ℅ &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 03:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, my friend.... yep..... (if your trying to prove a point, i don't get it. Not a crime to have a friends who use wikipedia..... have many friends who use myspace too. : ])--cooljuno411 03:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a "hasn't edited in 4 months but shows up to !vote in this Afd" friend. Those are the best kinds to have! ;] - ℅ &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 04:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember now, consensus is not a vote - What is consensus : ]--cooljuno411 05:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was willing to listen to any and all arguments based on things like Reliable Sources, but i haven't seen any yet. I was willing to completely ignore the ageism and claims of narrow-mindedness in your arguments, because i'm not bothered by your opinions of me personally. But when you blatantly play games with sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry, that's when i have to say "no more". Lack of integrity is not only irritating, it's an insult to the people who are trying to be collaborative with you. If you have comments to make, arguments to present, and ideas to discuss, you can do so without resorting to socks/meats/ and other lowbrow tactics. Nobody here is disregarding your opinions or your suggestions because of who you are as a person, we have only been trying to have a discussion based upon the simple principles of Verifiable data from Reliable Sources. Have some integrity and desist from the childishness. "Simply showing the ignorance" is the sort of argument i can ignore at first— but when it's followed by sockpuppetry or meatcanvassing, i'm going to draw the line in the sand. In case it weren't flaminingly obvious to you already, this situation has already been reported to Administrator Noticeboards/ Incidents and to CheckUser requests. Why don't you take a moment to think about how to collaborate in a friendly fashion with people who have been listening to you patiently, instead of insulting them in multiple ways. For goodness' sake, you've got a gaggle of LGBT editors here who are trying to accomodate all possible viewpoints and trying to be sensitive to all possible ideas, and you're practically spitting in our faces with your insults about our "ignorance", or "mindset from a different century", and your SSP abuse. Please stop. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 05:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As i said before, no issue with having a fellow friend who uses wikipedia. So you claim all sorts puppets and toys as you wish. I am not in the wrong for knowing a person who uses wikipedia.--cooljuno411 05:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently you missed the "!" in front of "vote". I'm well aware of this, thanks. - ℅ &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 05:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Pomosexual is a neologism and our article starts out by declaring this. The word was quite unfamiliar to me and, per WP:NEO, we should not use such words as they will baffle our readership.  This article has a better title for the ordinary reader which is consistent with the advice of WP:NEO: "use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English".  Pomosexual should be merged into it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have any Reliable Sources which we could use to justify this? I've gone through the current sources in the article, and they actually dissuade me from my usual tendency to be as inclusive and flexible as possible. For example:
 * In the source from Planned Parenthood and the American Psychological Association, we find them giving no mention of this as a category, we only find the term "unlabeled" at the end of a list of "descriptions of how some women label themselves", and a mention that in addition to "gay", "lesbian" and "bisexual", "some people may use different labels or none at all". So that's not evidence of a category, it's merely lack of data.
 * When i look at the Dewey Decimal discussion about categorizing literature on transgendered people i did a search for the keyword "neutral", and i found absolutely no evidence of such theoretical "neutral" or "undeclared" or "undefined" categorization; on the contrary, i found the opposite— they actually pose the question ' Is there any need for provisions for “asexuality and asexuals,” “people with no sexual orientation,” or “neutral sexual orientation”? ' and the document indicates this is an unanswered query.
 * Finally, when i look at the source material from the Society for Research on Adolescence, i did a keyword search on "neutral", "undeclared", "undefined", and grammatical spelling variations thereof. Results: zero, zip, zilch, nada. So i did a keyword search for "orientation", and all i found were discussions about adolescents who were in sexual-minorities who had issues with disclosure to their peers, family, etc; but those discussions clearly described the sexual-minorities in common terms such as "homosexual", "bisexual", etc.
 * As a person who would love to see the world less rigidly defined, particularly in terms of sexual orientation and all sorts of interpersonal relationships (sexual, physical, abstract, or otherwise), i will defend the inclusion of this article if we could find anything whatsoever in terms of a Reliable Source which gives us a reason to do so. Unfortunately, despite my philosophical sympathies toward the mindset of the article's creator, my best efforts to verify any such sources have been absolutely fruitless. So i'm afraid that the basic pillars of WP:V and WP:RS must, as usual, trump my sympathies and philosophies. If you can show me a single iota of any reliable reference which would allow us to include this concept/article/topic in our encyclopedia and in our templates, then i will do a complete 180° turnaround and vow my support; until then, i must concur with the advice that we Delete This With Hellfire. Thank you ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 11:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I just spent a minute or two and am satisfied that there's a topic here. To start with there's the sources for the pomosexual article.  And then there's scholarly papers like A critique of research on sexual-minority youths which indicate that there are many people who do not conform to or accept a "culturally defined sexual identity label".  And whatever we are to make of this, deletion is not the appropriate editing tool - this is a matter of ordinary content editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So what is the correct title for this article? Because so far, including the Abstract Summary in the link you just provided, i still haven't found a definitive answer. I'm not denying that we have phenomena which are beyond our usual definitions and linguistic norms; but can you even tell us reliably what the correct title should be for this article? My crystal balls have yet to indicate whether the terminology which will be used in the future is "Undeclared" or "Neutral", "Miscellaneous", or "i just don't want to give any of the usual answers, so leave my box Unchecked". It's not our standard practise to write articles about concepts which haven't even been given a generally-recognized descriptor. Instead, our standard practise is to take the information from the sources (such as the one you graciously gave) and weave their information into the other articles where such discussion is appropriate. Otherwise there would be no end to the infinite possibilities of frivolous article creation— just imagine how this would work in other areas, such as lists of painters, lists of musical bands, lists of dialect speakers, et cetera. Plenty of musicians claim their music isn't categorizable; plenty of painters refuse to accept categorical labels for their art; … so when we write articles about those bands and those artists, we don't invent an "undeclared visual art style" category in their templates, we don't invent an "unlabeled musical genre" for their placement in our encyclopedic hierarchies. If you can at least show me some sources which actually tell us what to consistently name this topic, then i'll agree that it fits under our most Universal Umbrella. I'm completely sympathetic to the concept, but if you can't show us the secondary sources then i must treat it as Original Research. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 12:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The current title is fine and consistent with sources such as Identity and labeling. Your quest for a more exact label is misdirected because the essence of the topic is rejection of precise and formal labels. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so if the current title is "Unlabeled sexual orientation", then why can't we find a body of information on this topic by searching the internet for this title? Even if you disregard my question about title, where are your secondary sources? Which books, journals, or other media are publishing information about "Unlabeled sexual orientation"? Please and thank you for taking the time to answer my questions when they are about something linguistically tricky, i do appreciate that you're looking for the most openminded way to include this article intelligently. All we need are some Reliable Sources, and i'll have no further questions, i'll accept your suggestion of inclusion if we can just verify that the topic is noted in some reputable way. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 13:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already provided two sources. If you try your search like this you'll find more.  I also note that the word fluid or fluidity occurs repeatedly in this context. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then write an article about fluid sexual orientation if you have found external secondary sources which have already done the Original Research! Your search results only emphasize my point further. You know how the American Census takers have the option to check the "Undeclared" box on their questionnaires about "Religious Preference"? We don't have an article about "Undeclared Religious Preference", instead we mention Undeclared Religious Preference in the appropriate places in the more general topics about Religion. You know how some musicians insist their music cannot be labelled as belonging to a certain genre? We don't have an article about "Undeclared Musical Genre", instead we mention the musicians' uncategorizable work in the appropriate places. You know how some people simply prefer to use the "Q" in "LGBTQ" rather than decide on an official descriptor for their feelings about sexuality and gender? People have written books and done scholarly research about the "Questioning" in "Questioning (sexuality and gender)" so we have an article about "Questioning (sexuality and gender)" because we can Verify the Reliable secondary Sources! Until you provide us with some secondary sources about "Fluid" or "Undeclared sexual orientation" which have given us something to summarize about the topic, we can't invent an article about it because that would be Original Research.


 * Personally, i think the quote from Winston Churchill on your UserPage is fabulous, because i do not wish to destroy the hard work of other Wikipedians. I want their valuable contributions to be included, and i want the inclusion to be done in the most useful and intelligent ways possible. If you examine my own Contribution History, you will find that this is the first time i have ever suggested deleting an article in my three years here. I'm even going to volunteer to "do the heavy lifting" of taking the information in this article and weaving it into the more appropriate contexts of other more general articles! Seriously, i am not denying the existence of "fluid" or "undeclared" or "neutral" sexual orientation— but until you give me some secondary sources which have done the original research about the topic, i refuse to accept the validity of a standalone article. The correct way to preserve the information and ensure that valuable facts are not destroyed is by relocating it to the more appropriate venues. I will offer to do all the relocation, but i will not do Original Research, and i will not include any other Wikipedians' original research; i will only work with material which is verified from reputable sources who have already published something of substance. Can you see how this would be more useful to our readers? We can't even justify a stub here; all we have are miscellanea which theoretically potentially deserve to be edited into the more appropriate more general areas. Wikipedia is a big enough Universal Umbrella to cover the information which is worth including, but our job is to include it correctly, not to invent a separate article for every possible nuance of every possible subsection of discussion. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 15:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, in the spirit of "writing for the enemy", i am giving an additional link which mirrors the Google Book Search you just mentioned above on an American server which is more accessible for some of us (your British link doesn't work for me, but i'm taking the time to seriously examine all of your ideas.) Please look carefully at the passage on that page:
 * 'We do not yet have the language to encompass the different identities that are arising. The identifications of fluid and queer are becoming more prevalent. Queer is an umbrella term that refers to an individual who has any sexual orientation, identity, or attraction that is not heterosexual. [...] Fluid refers to the fact that for some TNG youth sexual orientation, identity, and attractions may change and frequently depend on the mood, setting, and people in the individual's life. An individual who perceives their sexual orientation, gender expression, or sexual identity as fluid recognizes that their attractions may change in response to a host of variables and are at least somewhat comfortable with their recognition that these things change. [...] Paula Rust discusses the apparent permeability of the categories of sexual orientation constructed by social scientists.'
 * So you've made a convincing argument that we should discuss Fluid, Queer, Neutral, Undeclared, and other such possibilities in the more appropriate general articles about sexuality, orientation, and relationships. The only reason to give this its own standalone article would be if you could show us some Verifiable material which has already done the Original Research. Until then, this information can only be included in the more generalized more appropriate Wikipedia articles. I'm not denying the existence of the concept, i'm not asking you to destroy the work of editors like Cooljuno411, i'm asking you to please help us include the data in the proper places. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 15:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(OUTdent) Please look at the consensus for how we handle content forking. Then please look at the opening paragraph of Sexual orientation. Then please look at the stub for Questioning (sexuality and gender). Now, i understand " The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. " Also i'm an extremely egalitarian person in the arena of ideas, particularly as a lifelong crusader against bigotry and unnecessary labeling or judgmentalism. My friends, i've been singing Don't fence me in since before today's GLBTQ adolescents even knew what the "Q" stands for! I've learned every verse about sexual orientation, gender, cultural nonconformity, minority viewpoints, and ethical inclusiveness since before i even identified as anti-heteronormative. I've even offered to play Devil's advocate by WP:Writing for the enemy and presenting all sides with due weight: i went so far as to make |your evidence more accessible to everybody here.

I've told you that if this article is deleted to smithereens, i would even preserve the shrapnel in every intelligent way. I'm giving you the wikilinks to Questioning, Queer, GLBT Q, Sexual orientation, Bi-curious, Pomosexuality(References), Sexual identity, Gender identity, and Template:Gender_and_sexual_identities where you can examine their "see also" topics and other subcategorization options. I am a more generous inclusionist than 99% of the Wikipedians you will meet today. And i'm pointing out to you that this is the first time i have ever voiced an opinion for article deletion in my three years of experience as a Wikipedian. How can i possibly show you (and the article's disgraced creator!) more generosity for handling Article Spinouts?

Unless you show me some material from the details of the hypothetical research by Paula Rust, or a credible verifiable author who gives us some way to summarize a new stub spinout, what we have proven is a WP:POV fork rather than a Keep !vote for the sub-sub-topic which is being conceptualized. The original POV_fork Author of this article didn't even know what the correct title should be, and you haven't given us a way to verify inclusion nor merging— because we've demonstrated unanswered questions rather than  secondary sources which give us enough information about a certain aspect of a subject that justifies a separate article . We've already identified that this article's creation is a work of Original Research on the part of its creator, and he hasn't even dug up enough material from his own research presented there to elaborate any further than the seven sentences which redundantly parrot the information we find in all of the other articles which i've already wikilinked for you.

Part of being an Inclusionist Wikipedian involves learning how to create useful content forks instead of POV forks, and part of being an Inclusionist involves knowing how to merge, sort, summarize, and detail the valuable information in all of the available places which are appropriate. In case you hadn't noticed already, i'm the sort of editor who's always supporting inclusionism in every appropriate philosophy, whether for personal goals of egalitarianism and secular justice, or for WP:Neutral goals of Due Weight to objective analysis. (Why use a hundred words, when a thousand will do?!) I'm a Builder of Systems, not a Destroyer of Information. And even i can understand how this situation is easily resolved by following our guidelines of including all minority viewpoints!

In some future time when External Researchers have given us adequate secondary (or even tertiary) reliable sources, i will be all over your bandwagon to sing the Spinout song along with you! Until then, please hum along with me: "POV forks are not allowed; let's preserve the interesting bits of whose essence we are proud!"

Please forgive my loquaciousness, i just feel like we should always be sensitive to all sides of GLBT Q issues, even when the song of Q is being sung by sockpuppets or meatcanvassees. I'm very disgusted with the juvenile approach which was taken by the POV_fork Article's creator in his arguments here against deletion, but i'm still willing to champion his alternative perspectives for the sake of not pigeonholing anything unnecessarily. I'm even sufficiently iconoclastic to argue against cherished principles of Wikipedia policy and style guidelines. But you have to give us reasons, evidence, sources, something to support more forks— and until you do, you'll have to please kindly accept our offer to hold our Universal Umbrella over your stubs without creating frivolous articles. Do you know which road is paved by good intentions? It's marked on my map as "Infinite Inclusionism", but i'd rather take the shortcut down "Detail Our Existing Lane"!! Thank you, Q~friendly editors, ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 19:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not content forking.... haven't we established that a person who identifies as pomosexual is different from a person who does not label their sexual orientation???????--cooljuno411 20:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That really is what we're here to do. Sexuality (as we can see from the above) is always a highly-charged issue, and we should try to focus on the purpose of this AfD: (a)  Do we have verifiable, reliable sources that establish "Unlabeled sexual orientation" as a legitimate subject for an article?  (b)  Is "Unlabeled sexual orientation" sufficiently similar to "Pomosexual" to merit a merge?  Discussions on sexual identity in general aren't appropriate for this particular stage of the process. Tevildo (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(@Cooljuno411) AllStarEcho answered you already. I'll repeat in a different way, so maybe you'll see it more clearly: content forking is excellent, we just need some material from you which is a summary of External Sources of research, not your Original Research and opinions. Your POV_fork is about a concept which does exist, but you and your socks/meatpuppets haven't justified a separate article, you've barely even given us a seven sentence restatement of the information we've already elaborated in a dozen other more appropriate places. It doesn't matter whether or not i believe "that a person who identifies as pomosexual is different from a person who does not label their sexual orientation"… what matters is you haven't given us anything except your research, and that's not what we put in the encyclopedia. Instead, we use your research to decide how to sort and include and elaborate on all the Original Research which has already been found in our Secondary Sources. If this topic is so crucial to you, then it's your job to put some flesh on the bones, not to redundantly show us x-rays of the skeletons which we already see behind all of those dozen other more appropriately edited topics. Personally i am neither pomosexual nor neutral~orientation nor a "Q" person of "undeclared sexual orientation", but i would spend all weekend doing your job for you if you would just give me some materials from secondary sources to work with! I have thrice offered to "write for the enemy" even though i don't have a personal vested interest in advancing your viewpoint. I've given you every possible pertinent link to help steer you along the pathway of data retention, because i know that Wikipedia is not paper and i am happy to hold the Universal Umbrella over your dangly dingdong stubs if you would just give me something to stuff in your stub! If your next contentious point is not somehow evidence of secondary sources instead of personal opinion, i am officially going to fling the Umbrella aside and cease giving you any more credence. You've taken the time to "LOLZ" on the SSP Investigation instead of just politely answering my requests for elaboration, and your supposed meatpuppets have been singing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in response to multiple administrator requests for explanation of your behavior. I only give respect to rulebreakers who demonstrate a need for the rules to be broken, i don't suffer gladly your insulting ageist sockpuppeteering bratty personal attacks.

Think very very carefully, Cooljuno411, before you make any further posts to this thread, or to any related forum, discussion, investigation, or talkpages. If you want the Wikipedia community (and especially the LGBTQ/ undeclared/ neutral/ undefined/ queer~friendly editors in that community) to respect your next remark, i hope you will think about how to swallow your pride or shame and admit that there is a better approach to article-building which does not involve meatpuppets or sockpuppets. If you want every last Wikipedian to see the flaming tracers of your swan song as a postmodern approach to "How to spit in the face of people who volunteer hours of their time to help you", then by all means, go ahead and light those final fireworks with an additional disrepectful emanation of sparking spittle. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 20:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So do tell what you idea is.... With out drowning it in paragraphs and words.... it tends to devoid people from reading it.... and i know it's not just me... : ]--cooljuno411 23:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was the first person to create the TalkPage for this AfD Discussion so you could go there and present Reliable secondary Sources in order to Verify the justification for a content fork, despite the fact that i could have PRODded for speedy deletion as this was just a recreation of the same dispute over pomosexual/ anthrosexual/ refusal to define or declare orientation. You have yet to contribute successfully with basic pillars of WP:V along WP:GNG using WP:RS to help your case, and your SockMeatMouth told me my dotage makes me simply too ignorant to understand your contributions. You can reverse the situation, and you can explain your actions at the appropriate Noticeboards for CheckUser Investigation. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 00:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will further continue to say NOT A CONTENT FORK. Pomosexual and an unlabeled sexual orientation are completely different. And i don't know why you have a habit of bringing up anthrosexual..... it is another orientation that is completely beside the point... If you need a distinguishment of the differences, try here : ] --cooljuno411 00:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * KABLAMMO! KABLOOIE! Speaking of sparkling sparking spittle. I should have shouted at you to "get off the lawn!" because if you don't want to park in the designated parking area, you are free to pull over somewhere else off the road, instead of spinning your tires on the grass. That was actually your second edit in response to me after i made a last-ditch effort to offer you credence. I'm afraid the Universal Umbrella is now officially chucked, and you can thank yourself as i will no longer volunteer to do your writing for you. You could have used me as a wikipedia editing resource/tool because i'm able to practise inclusion of minority viewpoints even when i don't give a hoot about the difference between your non-neutral POV and our basic Pillars; instead you squandered every last opportunity to avail yourself of my offers with your usual flippant frivolous backhand snarks. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 01:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * keep At the end neologism, it says that if there's a noteable topic for which no well established term exists, we should use a plain english phrase. So I dont think that phenomena for where there's no established term need to off bounds. I had this confirmned a few weeks back by the folks on the no original reasearch notice board.  Granted it seems to be hard to find good sources, but the ones already present seem to confirm the noteability of the phenomena. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Very true. : ] HAve been saying many of times, "NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH", but a select few keep scream that it is.... : ]--cooljuno411 23:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH. As has been proven above, none of the sources speak of this term, either academically or as a neologism. - ℅ &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 00:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So when the APA says some people may use other labels or NONE AT ALL to discuss there sexual orientations.... there not talking about not labeling your sexual orientation..... hmmm.... then please do tell what they are talking about.... cause i'll be sure to start that article....--cooljuno411 01:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism, original research, etc. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC).
 * What is the difference between anthrosexual and pansexual? I agree that anthrosexual is different from having an unlabeled sexuality. Mish (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point of this discussion. If somebody does not label label their sexuality, then that would be commented on under sexual orientation or sexual identity, but if an article is created called 'unlabeled sexual orientation', then it is effectively creating a labeled sexuality called 'unlabeled sexuality'.  I do not identify (or label myself) as any particular gender (beyond legal necessities), that does not mean I have an unlabeled gender, I have no gender.  Referring to an 'unlabeled sexuality' is simply referring to something that is not there - the lack of a clear sexual identity label.  Sure, people have refused to label their sexuality, some would find it difficult to give their sexuality a label, but to get from people saying they don't label their sexuality, or even DSM commenting on this, to there being a consistent understanding of this as a clear category 'unlabeled sexuality' is a leap.  You probably find the majority of heterosexuals don't label their sexuality, because they don't need to. Mish (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your whole theory of discussing it gives it a label would be a nice debate you can entertain between friends. But fact is, this is an informational encyclopedia, so regardless of your brain teaser, it is the job of an encyclopedia to document actual facts. And i would have to say your theory of heterosexual people not truly labeling themselves to be false. How can they be "heterosexual", but then not label themselves..... rather oxymoronic.--cooljuno411 06:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can tell from the hint of abuse in your response that you know I have a valid point. People don't tend to identify as straight, because that is seen as 'normal'.  Why label the unlabeled here, when it is unlabeled elsewhere? Mish (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not label as straight??? Lolz.... in a society like ours, where your a "fag" if your not straight, they generally drop the "i'm straight" phrase all the time. Ask a "straight" guy who looks better, Bill Gates or Brad Bitt, they'll say "I don't know, i'm straight (as though it's a bar to see truths)". So I'm sorry, but i would have to severely disagree with you.--cooljuno411 15:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Brad Pitt. Mish (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that a complete thought? I have no idea what is intended to be conveyed with that name. Lady  of  Shalott  20:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a response to "who looks better, Bill Gates or Brad Bitt", i believe. To me, it makes more sense than anything i'm getting from the "Lolz.... your a fag" missives. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 20:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks. Sorry I missed that. Lady  of  Shalott  20:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - essentially synthesis/original research; the list of real people raises WP:BLP issues. Robofish (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Mish (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No issue, they flat out said it themselves....--cooljuno411 00:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment A study has been added which  quantitatively studied the reasons given by respondents for choosing unlabelled sexual orientation.   It will be a shame if this article gets deleted,  Id say the sources now easily establish notability! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do reference by providing a link. : ]--cooljuno411 19:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think the references already in the article demonstrate enough notability for the concept. Lady  of  Shalott  21:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The sources that say nothing about the concept, too? An interview with Lidnsey Lohan where she says she doesn't want to classify herself hardly speaks to the concept.. especially coming from her. Her, and others such as Pink say these kinds of things for publicity. Frankly, there's just no sources that say "this and this is called or known as or is referred to in Academia or science as Unlabeled sexual orientation". The sources just do not support anything implied in this 100% totally original research "article". Even in the ref formatting, Cooljuno has tried to make the refs say things they don't really say. For example: Look at ref 4. A quote from an American Psychological Association, What is sexual orientation? - "sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual, gay/lesbian, and bisexual"..... However, some people may use different labels or none at all." - "none at all" referring to an unlabeled sexual orientation. The bolded section, emphasis mine. We don't use refs to try and infer meaning from a source. The source either says it as fact, or it's not an acceptable source. Yet here, Cooljuno adds his own interpretation of the source by adding "none at all" referring to an unlabeled sexual orientation to the reference footnote. Unacceptable in any encyclopedia, much less Wikipedia. Original research, the whole thing. - ALLST✰R &#09660; echo wuz here @ 21:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh gosh.... someone's getting bitter. ; } --cooljuno411 21:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cooljuno, nastiness is not necessary. I urge you to strike that comment. Lady  of  Shalott
 * It's ok. I ignore the children after the first few sarcastic remarks they've already left all over the place. - ALLST✰R &#09660; echo wuz here @ 21:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And why did you reply.... ?? --cooljuno411 21:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I replied to LadyofShalott.. not to you kid. - ALLST✰R &#09660; echo wuz here @ 22:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ASE, I think we should remove the portion of the sentence you quoted that says, "'none at all' referring to an unlabeled sexual orientation". However, it is referring to the concept, even if it does not phrase it that way. The Planned Parenthood reference clearly lists "unlabeled" among its entries, and the UK government survey discusses people choosing not to use a label . So, yes, in my mind, this establishes enough notability for the concept. I realize you don't agree with me. :) Lady  of  Shalott  21:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)Additionally, I removed the study added to the "article" by FeydHuxtable. It simply does not say what that content said the study says. For example:
 * A 2006 UK study carried out by the Office for National Statistics, a branch of the British Civil Service, found that between 1.5% and 4.6% preferred not to identify their sexual orientation, depending on how the question was framed. This speaks nothing about "Unlabeled sexual orientation". The study says people chose not to identify their orientation for the study. That most definitely does not mean they don't have their own personal label for it. It just means they didn't want to identify it.
 * while 33% said they preferred not to give a reason for choosing to be unlabelled. This is a huge stretch. 33% said they preferred not to give a reason. If we don't have a reason, how do we know it was because they didn't want to be labeled?
 * Again, a case of trying to make a study infer something it doesn't. - ALLST✰R &#09660; echo wuz here @ 21:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading through the paper, I am striking the portion of my comments about the UK study. I have already reverted myself on ASE's deletion of that from the article. Lady  of  Shalott  21:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Change name of article? - Should we change the name of the article to "A person who does not label their sexual orientation"???--cooljuno411 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I Think this would be more satisfying for everyone in this discussion. I care more about the theory itself, then a title. So don't feel as though i am stubborn. : ] --cooljuno411 22:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I have already change the name of the subsection "Notable people with unlabeled sexual orientations" to "Notable people who do not label their sexual orientation" it is more correct that way. But it does show more of an example of what i am talking about. : ]--cooljuno411 22:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) No, I don't think it would be more satisfying for much of anyone. It does not follow our typical naming conventions. Lady  of  Shalott  22:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do reference a policy that says that.... i have seen some rather long names out there. : ] But please do feel free to help come up with a better title. Because i think echoallstar seems to have more of a problem with the name, more than the actual theory, that's what i am interpreting it to be. Well i would at-least hope it is not the concept, because that would be rather discriminative.--cooljuno411 22:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As requested: Naming conventions. Lady  of  Shalott  00:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The specific policy that would bar this name?--cooljuno411 03:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:No Original Research covers this, regardless of nomenclature. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 03:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That and/or Wikipedia:Synthesis. How about incorporating this under pomosexual, and set up a redirect for 'Unlabeled sexual orientation' in case somebody one day happens to type in as a search? Mish (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Allstar, I agree that folk who prefer not to identify their sexuality will very often know what their sexuality is, but then a label is an external badge, not wanting one doesnt  necessarily mean you dont think any of the existing labels fit you. I also agree the study doesnt argue that there's some new kind of sexuality called "unlabelled sexuality"  or similar, but I dont think thats what Juno's article is saying. His article defines unlabelled sexuality as  "those who do not label themselves with a sexual orientation"  -   thinking that the current choices are unsuitable is one reason for choosing not accept a label, but only one of many.


 * Juno, here's the link to the study, which has now been removed from the article, the specific study on reasons for not choosing a label is on p12.  Would  Non disclosure of sexual identity be a fair alternative title for your article? I still think it would be best for this topic to have its own article if possible. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are getting at. In the UK there is a call to have the next census to have an option not to specify a sex/gender.  Some people think this means a third sex/gender option, but it is simply an option not to specify a sex/gender.  I would not call that 'unlabeled sex/gender', but unspecified sex/gender.  I wonder if 'unspecified sexuality' might be something we could consider?  There are moves to incorporate sexual orientation on some forms, and some will not want to identify themselves as having a specific sexuality, or may feel the options do not cover them.  'Unspecified sexuality' would accommodate those who do not wish to disclose, specify or label their sexuality maybe? I am still concerned that this is all so new it does verge on the novel in a way that draws together separate things - but as has happened with gender issues and androgyny, it something that needs a location.  I guess pomosexual is a positive identitification, unlike an unwillingness to identify or be identified. Mish (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Unspecified sexuality' would work IMO. As per study some forms do already allow the "prefer not to say" option - I couldnt swear to it but I think I've seen one of them before ,certainly I've heard of the concept. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Pomosexual, for now. I might change to "keep" if someone replaces the [original research?] tag in the article lead with a reliable source that states the difference. -- Explodicle <font size="-2">(T/C) 18:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I also support a merge w/Pomosexual. "An unlabeled sexual orientation is different from pomosexuality" is OR and not a comprehensible statement, IMO; it's somewhat like "This sentence is false".--Elvey (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "the pomosexual or the ‘post-modern sexual’ is "a person who shuns labels such as heterosexual and homosexual that define individuals by their sexual preferences." Mallik, Chetan (24 January 2004). "Now, say hello to the pomosexual!". The Times of India. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/442642.cms So, they are the same, except that one shuns labels to the extent that 'pomosexual' is rejected as well.  What ever will those who shun 'unlabeled sexual orientation' do, I wonder?  I am torn - I'd be happy for 'unspecified' relating to certain circumstances, and I can see why people who shun labels might feel offended by others imposing a label on them.  People have the right to define themselves - but I'm still not sure 'unlabeled' has been (nor by definition can be) established as a verifiable categorisation in the way it would be required to be for an article in its own right.  It needs evidence of a taxonomy of sexual orientation which lists this as a distinct nomenclature, not a description of people not labeling their sexuality.  I doubt you will find it, because the term used in such taxonomies will be 'pomosexual' - and (I agree with Elvey) if there is a controversy there needs to be some reference to verify that.  Maybe this is just an idea whose time has not yet come? Mish (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect for now. We do have articles on neologisms but it's because we have plenty of sources to denote notability that they are more mainstream. This fails the duck test of original research, at least from a reader standpoint, although in fairness I think it's bordeline. I'm familiar with both nom and primary author and believe they each have good intentions. The issue remains with article quality despite a rather pointy nom. Looking past all of it it really seems like a borderline keep with a stay of execution at best. 3-6 months later we'd see that, no, the article hasn't budged much and we'd be back here. Having stated that, pomosexual was bolstered by a single book by prominent sexologist. So this term too could spring forth rather quickly into mainstream usage. I suggest redirect for now in hopes more sourcing is evidenced.  -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   17:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Question - It seems obvious where you think the redirect should go, but to be clear, are you saying "redirect to Pomosexuality? Lady  of  Shalott  01:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   03:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * HUH? (Keep) This is such a messed up AfD, it's nearly impossible to make sense of it. So, let me add to the confusion by including my observations after stating that I have never edited this article and am completely uninvolved. 1) I don't understand the POV claims about either article. Unlabeled sexual orientation seems to be a short, but better than a stub, class article. Pomosexual is an even shorter article, and seems to discuss essentially the same thing, except Pomosexuals apparently prefer to label themselves as "Pomosexuals" rather than being labeled as "unlabled". Fine. I don't give a hoot what someone calls themself, but the articles sounds pretty much the same in content. 2) Pomosexual is (according to the article) a neologism, and according to WP:NEO, it shouldn't really be its own article. Thus, since they two articles are essentially the same topic, delete the Pomosexual article (i.e., it should be the one undergoing AfD), keep this article, and include mention of the neologism in this article (or merge if there is enough relevant and sourced information already contributed). 3) This AfD should probably closed on procedural grounds because it's mostly arguments about points of view, borderline personal attacks, and disgruntled people who have argued this topic in the past. Serious discourse about the article's merits as an article are difficult to find. It's more of a rambling WP:RfC  with lots of personal drama than a discussion about the merits of keeping or deleting an article based on the Five pillars. &mdash; Will scrlt  ( “Talk” ) 22:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * DUH? I've never edited this article either, and had no views before coming here, although was met with sarcasm as soon as I questioned the point of this article. Maybe as there is so little to support either article's existence, they should both be deleted, and this would support people who do not want to label their sexual orientation, because we will not be party to labeling it by having an article to legitimise any reference to it. A footnote under Sexual Orientation would fit the bill better. Mish (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Pomosexual, however meets both notability and reliable sourcing whereas this once remains borderline. Despite the poor form of some AfD comments we need to look to where sourcing leads and these are rather thin for a subject that should have little problem being sourced of notable enough.  -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   03:53, 8 May 2009 (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.