Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOTSS

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 22:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MOTSS

dicdef

  • Maybe there's somewhere this and MOTOS can be redirected, but they shouldn't have whole articles. --Trovatore 05:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC) (nominator)
  • These are commonly-used abbreviations used in sexuality research and GLBT publications. Several times people see these abbreviations on places like imdb.com, sexuality.org and thousands of other web sites and use FAQ's or search engines to discover the answer as to what the abbreviations stand for, so Wickipedia could serve as source for such answers. To delete these abbreviations, demonstrates ignorance and prejudice. [Unsigned comment by TednAZ 01:06, October 8, 2005 (UTC)]
  • Merge with sexology. Qaz (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOTOS, redirect to sexual orientation. Uncle G 13:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with sexology.68.99.129.188 21:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This strictly hetero, not especially webwise person recognises this initialism and deems it of sufficient noteworthiness to merit a keep. Denni☯ 00:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Terms (MOTSS and MOTOS) in wide use, on the Internet and elsewhere. (Google search: "motss" 138,000; "motss -soc.motss" 75,300.) I edited to add the Usenet connection (naming of newsgroup soc.motss partially due to desire to obscure the subject of the group, to prevent management scrutiny at Usenet sites as well as closeted subscribers). Not a dicdef; terms have cultural significance. MCB 07:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't get how that makes it "not a dicdef". The article defines the meaning, says in what context the term is used and by whom, and not much else. This is all dictionary stuff. If it were an anthropological article about the phenomenon of people using this term as opposed to another one, that would be different. I might still vote to delete--seems like pretty thin gruel; I'd want to see citations indicating that the phenomenon (rather than the term) was an object of scholarly study. But it wouldn't be on dicdef grounds. --Trovatore 06:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Denni and MCB. --Idont Havaname 05:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the entry! i was glad to have come across it and learn what it meant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.32.166 (talk • contribs)
    • Sure, that's why it's often fun to read dictionaries. --Trovatore 18:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per MCB. TednAZ 08:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to sexual orientation. The Bearded One 15:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per MCB. Reflex Reaction 19:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOTOS. Nabla 01:27, 14 October 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.