Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trisexual

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 as per consensus. El_C 07:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trisexual

As it stands (and has stood for a long time -- I've waited and waited for improvement to see if there's actually something to the topic), it's an unverified, probably original research, mess, that even if it's not unverified and original research would be unencyclopedic. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete And not notable. JASpencer 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be deleted just because there is limited information on the topic, it is a relatively new topic and we should at least have this information to refer to for future references. We can always add more or add accurate information if proven to be wrong. DON'T DELETE!!!!tuan_85

• Delete Totally unsourced, nobody has any idea what it means, and the picture just added by tuan_85 (talk · contribs) makes the value of that vote pretty pretty clear. Fan-1967 06:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Don't DeleteI will admit the picture was totally unreliable and not having to do anything with the subject, but all jokes aside this article should not be deleted just based on the fact that it is unsourced. Every reliable source at one time are another was an unknown source beforehand, as previously stated don't delete just because it is an unknown subject with little to no information based on the subject at hand. I mean what makes a realiable source a reliable source? If it's shown on tv or is spoken about on the media. We all know that media can print or talk about things out of context on purpose just for a sake of a story, which make it just as unreliable as one's words. We should just wait it out and see if any new information comes forth. tuan_85 10:51, 9 October 2006(UTC)

• All jokes aside, you've offered nothing but jokes. We don't recognize sources until they have become reliable, and we don't include things until they have been documented. We will delete this exactly "because it is an unknown subject with little to no information based on the subject at hand." Otherwise people would come to Wikipedia expencting to find information, and instead get baseless, unsupported, unverified ramblings like this. Fan-1967 19:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unencyclopedic even if a real word. Blockinblox 16:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Too vague, no sources. And since the defender of the article is in joking mood, here's a semi-serious joke: It's not even worth turning into a redirect to polyploidy. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced and google only really has quotes from P!nk and an urban dictionary and the fact it's a play on words try-sexual i.e. anything goes. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, unsourced non-notable neologism. RFerreira 01:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — Arbusto 05:41, 11 October 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.