Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Fraysexuality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Delete. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fraysexuality

Fraysexuality (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Contested Quick-deletion; we are looking at a term from the LGBTIQ+ spectrum. There are 13 references in the article. I am not against LGBTIQ+ topics, but I currently don't know how common or widespread the term is. So: keep or delete? Eptalon (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

Delete or Redirect to Sexual attraction where these terms can be explained. There isn't much in News searches that looks reliable. The only hit I got on Google Scholar for both was this appendix from stats NZ where you have to go several pages down into a list of identifiers to find these as "Sexual identity not elsewhere classified" --Gotanda (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what I feared: Does it make sense ot have an article, where each of these terms (I deleted 1-2 others,like it) is explained in 1-2 sentences, with the appropriate rferences? - I mean, what a person sexually finds attractive will also depend on that person's past sexual experiences. I think sexual attraction may not be the right target to link to? - I remember, that in a zoo somewhere, there was an openly homosexual penguin, and recently I trie translating an article about species being attracted to the same genotype and phenotype (in other words:other individuals of the same species that "look very similar")?--Eptalon (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nervously, I am going for delete here on the basis that this is not a notable enough term to warrant its own article in other wikis, or to be mentioned even in a sentence. I guess the problem is that these sexualities, if we included all of them, could number in the thousands, and that could clog up the wiki, and we have to draw the line somewhere, and in my view that line has to have fraysexuality excluded. However, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if there was a firm policy about it. Blissyu2 (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This and many other articles were created by a now globaly blocked user who seemed to be obsessed with forcing content on obscure sexual topics and theories.*Treker (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing seems good and indicates notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly is it good?*Treker (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note i'm not with deleting it's really a waste of knowledge[1] however, redirecting to articles that can be explained is sounds good to me. --🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not due to this being an uncommon or new term, but because it should fit nicely under “asexuality” where the different terms on the spectrum could be identified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fb90:83e5:1038:d48e:3630:1f55:9dfc (talk • contribs) 17:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 23:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.