Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gastrosexuality

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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrosexuality[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Failed attempt at neologism from 2008, apparently part of a commercial promotion. Appears to have originated in the Daily Mail, which is not usable as a source. RS usage that I can find is one Irish Times mention. There's a HuffPost article that turns out to be a reblog of the Daily Mail piece. There's a Times article that admits it's an advertising feature. That's it. This was an article, then it was a redirect, then it was restored as an ill-sourced article. I'm pretty sure a single usage of an advertising promotional term is not sufficient for a Wikipedia article, and it would be a dicdef in any case. David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for citation and a reliable source and isn't notable enough.Yakov-kobi (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A single, possibly promotional use wouldn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. It might be better suited for a dictionary definition. Waqar💬 18:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination, and all of the above. TH1980 (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The article as it is now is poorly sourced and not so well written. But I plugged gastrosexual into Google Scholar and got plenty of decent-looking hits from a range of years: [1] This is not a term that flared up in 2008 and then died out quickly. If there's a Wikipedian willing to put in the work, this could scrub up into a keepable article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2024 (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.