Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uterosexual


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Uterosexual
Neologism, 12 Google hits, contested PROD. Sandstein 19:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, neologism created by non-notable author, not generally used by people other than that one author. It originally appeared in a book published in 2005, so it hasn't withstood the test of time. Catamorphism 19:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Neologism that nobody has adopted. Fan1967 19:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a neologism. Re-create article if it catches on. --Icarus 20:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable neologism. If cited in newspapers, journals of record or popular culture then it could be transwikied to Wiktionary.  WP is not a dictionary.   (aeropagitica)   22:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Unlikely to find much in the way of WP:RS. Even then, it probably should go into Wiktionary. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable protologism. And rather an ugly one. Robin Johnson 11:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind: slight merge with Metrosexual. It's a verifiable minor point that this word exists, so worth mentioning as part of a more general article. Robin Johnson 15:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't understand what this word has to do with "metrosexual". It's not defined as a female parallel to "metrosexual" at all (the female equivalent of "metrosexual" would be a straight woman who has the fashion and grooming sense that lesbians have, whatever that would mean). Catamorphism 22:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Nine Google hits (in English) is so small that I don't think the word has yet earned any recognition at all. Fan1967 16:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do NOT Delete. It's the great term for a valid trend. If Retrosexual can be listed in Wikipedia, then so should Uterosexual. Triple-x 12:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But that is not what Wikipedia is for. If 'uterosexuals' are not already a notable phenomenon, known by that name, the article has no place here. And if there's nothing but a definition, it should go in a dictionary. Robin Johnson 12:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't change your own comments after people have replied to them! Anyway, Retrosexual is tagged saying it has been AfD'd and the result was to merge with Metrosexual - and now I think that's the best idea for this article, too. Robin Johnson 15:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. I just merged Retrosexual with Metrosexual.  Therefore, the argument of "everyone is doing it, so why can't we?" is moot.  Retrosexual was unacceptable on its own, and so is this article.  It's silly to have an article on a neologism used by only one author.  Brian G. Crawford 23:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do NOT Delete but merge with Metrosexual. It is a valid published term which simply expands Wikipedia's informativeness. Triple-x 00:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not vote more than once. -- Astrokey44 |talk 01:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, nn -- Astrokey44 |talk 01:47, 22 March 2006 (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.