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 no consensus. A discussion can occur on the talk page if a redirect or merge is preferred. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aromanticism[edit]

Aromanticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:NOTDICT Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHANCE WP:DEMOLISH This article hasn't had a chance to develop yet. Look at both the essays I linked to here for information that may be useful. The article is not finished being built so I don't think it should be demolished. Here is an excerpt from the demolition essay: "When an article is being written, and sources are being found and validated, then the article will be small and mostly unsourced and not very full of information. This is, of course, called a stub. Stubs are stubs because they have yet to be expanded. Often, an article or set of articles will be run across that seem devoid of much information. Sometimes it will be nothing but cruft that must be removed. But often, the subject matter is simply in-progress. Rather than putting the article on AfD, try expanding it." I feel like this article is necessary for aromanticism to be a more widely recognized thing. As is, there have been studies that suggest up to 4% of the population may be aromantic and not know it, so I feel like people need a little more information about aromanticism on sites that are well-known like Wikipedia and not just sites that are specially for aromantic people since most people who may be aromantic won't think to look for those sites. Also, aromanticism is a real thing that sources can be used to back up. Here is an example of a source that can be added to back up the information: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/oct/11/meet-the-aromantics-not-cold-dont-have-romantic-feelings-sex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.137.207 (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to romantic orientation for now, until that article gets big enough to warrant a split? - 96.21.237.159 (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Asexuality. This is what the article describes. Szzuk (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually asexuality and aromanticism are two different things and a person can be either one without being the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.137.207 (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this appears to be a concpet covered in reliable sources The Ethical Slut: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships and The Invisible Orientation: An Introduction to Asexuality. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As an editor, I'd prefer a merge to Romantic orientation. It's a subtopic thereof, and the content is so short that it would fit well there. It can be spun off again later if there's more sourced content. Sandstein 09:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I disagree with the delete rationale by Eddie since this is not merely a dictionary term; it is a concept that is widely discussed even if not using this actual term; think of the thousands of articles where writers criticize people who are together yet have not formed a romantic bond yet. I also disagree with the merge rationale since I feel it minimizes the aromantic stance and seems akin to merging asexuality into "sexual orientation". I also feel that the article is expandable. Also, the two opinions voiced before the 27th should be disregarded because the article has been improved considerably since then. My third reason for opposing a merge is that collaboration on improving this article becomes more difficult when the article isn't there to begin with. 92.2.70.144 (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I simply feel that at this moment, there is not enough material in the article to be a stand alone article, and it would fit much better being merged to a parent article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:32, 8 April 2018 (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.