Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flexual
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Flexual
This was nominated for speedy deletion as "nonsense". It's not nonsense, it's just not very notable. So I'm moving it to AfD. RSpeer 03:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- delete neologism --Trovatore 04:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- This is not nonsense at all, although it is far from being an encyclopedia article. Perhaps it could be moved to the dictionary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.4.34 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-31 08:56:49 UTC
- The dictionary won't take it. It is not attested as a word in widespread use (The only occurrences of the word as actual uses turn out to be mis-spellings of flexural.) and doesn't satisfy the Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. Uncle G 13:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- The encyclopaedia subject would be the concept of flexuality, as per our Wikipedia:naming conventions (adjectives). I find no sources providing evidence that there is such a concept. Delete. Uncle G 13:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Flexure is a well-known medical term in use in ALL medical colleges and among the medical fraternity. The splenic and hepatic flexures of the peritoneum are well known since the time of Henry Gray. However, the meaning elaborated in the article is probably a neologism and non notable. Not encyclopediac. Delete unless somebody wants to re-work the medical aspects....perhaps, i will even do it. Prashanthns 14:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as part of "War on Portmanteaux" --MacRusgail 21:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- I created this article after editing the Wesleyan University article to include reference to the great diversity of sexual identities and words to describe those identities there. All of the terms that they use already had wikipedia articles except for this one, so I made this article so that people would know what I was talking about in the wesleayan article. Is there perhaps a better way to do this, perhaps within the Wesleyan University page, since I'm pretty sure that the only time someone would end up at this article is through a link from the Wesleyan University page. Thanks for your indulgence, I'm new at wikipedia, so I'm also not entirely sure how to sign my comments and things. I just copied my last comment and changed the timestamp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.4.34 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-31 23:27:48 UTC
- Welcome to Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with our verifiability and no original research policies. An encyclopaedia article on the concept of flexuality would have to be verifiable and not original research. It would have to cite reliable sources to show that such a concept existed in the first place and that it had also been peer reviewed and accepted into the corpus of human knowledge by other people. No such sources have been cited, or can be found.
In contrast, a Google Groups search reveals that people consider "flexual" to be a silly neologism, that is "just another in an endless line of weasel words", and that makes them want to barf. It appears that this concept, and indeed these words, have no traction outside of their creators. Uncle G 01:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- If you follow the hyperlink on the word "unsigned", you'll find out what to do, by the way. Uncle G 11:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with our verifiability and no original research policies. An encyclopaedia article on the concept of flexuality would have to be verifiable and not original research. It would have to cite reliable sources to show that such a concept existed in the first place and that it had also been peer reviewed and accepted into the corpus of human knowledge by other people. No such sources have been cited, or can be found.
- Delete as neologism. It's interesting, but not encyclopedic. - Sensor 01:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm ok with it being deleted, and after looking at some of the policy articles, the resons for its deletion are beginning to make sense to me, but without it the wesleyan article seems incomplete, since it references the term "flexual" without providing any context for what it means. Any ides on how to fix that? I'd rather not remove all reference to "flexual" from the wesleyan article, since queer issues are very important on campus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.4.34 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-01 03:37:37 UTC
- Can you cite any source that says what the people at Wesleyan University who invented it assert the word to mean? If so, then you can add it as a footnote against the word in that article. Uncle G 11:24, 1 November 2005 (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.
