Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sapiosexual (3rd nomination)

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. (X! · talk) · @142 · 02:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sapiosexual

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article on this term was previously deleted in 2006 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sapiosexual (2nd nomination). It was then recreated as a redirect; recently however, User:SamJohnston turned it back into an article, with the edit summary 'if it's nn, csd/afd it - don't point it at another word with a different meaning.' It still is a non-notable term, with no sources other than blogs. This article should once again be deleted, and protected from recreation. Robofish (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - recreation of deleted material, with no more substance than the previous two times. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt & SNOW - as above. -- samj _in ^out 01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete and salt, per orangemike. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I'm not finding any reliable sources that could be used to establish the notability of this neologism. A trip to DRV should be necessary for recreation. Deor (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, non-notable neologism, no reliable sources. Anna Lincoln 08:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage of the term in reliable sources. Polargeo (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 22:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 22:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a liberal dose of SALT. Neologism, with approximately zero sources - Alison ^❤ 23:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete + salt - non-notable neologism; probably intended as promotion for the website. LadyofShalott 03:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete + salt per above. --John (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW already! -- samj _in ^out 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.