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 SNOW delete. Creator admits WP:MADEUP. Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gift sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

Creator admits it is a neoligism. No references found other than a forum post at RichardDawkins.net -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the creator's response when I PROD'd this article was left on the talk page: Why does an article need references, it's a concept that I've coined . All concepts start somewhere. You would really delete an article because there are no other references for it on the internet? Again, this isn't factual information like population genetics. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - neologism. Not used by anyone but the author (as unfortunate as that is :-) Dismas|^(talk) 19:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is sort of a neologism, but really, this is more something that belongs in the Urban Dictionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable neologism. Edward321 (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article creator admits its a neologism he's made up. Urban Dictionary is this way, please. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:00, 15 August 2009 (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.