Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heteroflexibles

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 was delete. --Coredesat 05:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of heteroflexibles

List of heteroflexibles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Blatant POV fork of List of bisexual people, where this page's creator has been involved in a lengthy edit war. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC) |

  • Delete per nom. Hagerman(talk) 02:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doczilla 03:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator - ∅ (∅), 03:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • And because Wikipedia has ten times more lists than we need. - ∅ (∅), 03:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. riana_dzasta 04:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 04:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per that second small comment. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary duplication of article as noted in nom. Seraphimblade 06:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft as a way to end an edit war doesn't justify existence as article. SkierRMH,08:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft (WP:NOT) --Charlesknight 13:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TSO1D 15:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, list of dubious criteria which can be hard to substantiate and will never be complete. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as POVforking. Do we even need the other page? I can't really see how a list of famous bisexuals serves any real purpose. Wouldn't a category be better? Koweja 22:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirect to List of bisexual people and sprotect. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of bisexual people and semiprotect if necessary. I'd be cool with delete too. POV fork. Another problem is that "Heteroflexible" is pretty neologistic. It's not in the dictionary (AHD4). Having gotten drawn into editing List of bisexual people, I've found that for many people it possible in many cases to find decent sources that refer to them using the word "bisexual." I've argued (semi-successfully) that the criterion for list inclusion should be the citation of a reliable source that uses the word "bisexual," rather than Wikipedians' editorial judgement of whether some collection of facts adds up to bisexuality. But I don't think there many people for whom you could find a reliable source that describes them using the word "heteroflexible." I notice that a Google Books search on "heteroflexible" turns up only four entries, none of which uses the word to describe a specific, named person. Heteroflexible is an awfully... flexible word. Would you call Lewis Carroll a "pedoflexible?" Dpbsmith (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per dpbsmith. Danny Lilithborne 00:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above, neologism, POV fork. -Patstuarttalk|edits 08:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. This is a neologism not in the dictionary, and it inherently invokes POV every time it is used except perhaps in the rare cases of cited people who used the word to identify themselves. Doczilla 09:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a WP:POVFORK. I don't think a redirect is necessary because the term apears to be a neologism.--Isotope23 14:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep unless those proponing deletion are willing to maintain the subtle distinctions needed for accuracy @ List of bisexual people — Adrian Lamo ·· 22:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, above all because the list includes, and is clearly designed to include, people who are more like homoflexible. There are real, difficult questions about how to handle the List of bisexual people, but this kind of blatant mislabelling makes things worse, not better. —Celithemis 00:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think I can give a reasoning that wasn't already provided. -- Mikeblas 00:36, 15 December 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.