Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aceflux

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Aceflux}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Aceflux}})

Does not warrant its own article. Extremely short article that can easily be incorporated into the gray asexuality article, which it is directly associated with. It can also be easily covered in sexual fluidity as well. I don't think this warrants its own article, nor do I think there are enough reliable sources to justify it. DocZach (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. DocZach (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Agreed, especially since most of the info seems to be on etymology of the term and not aceflux as asexuality in it of itself. Should be put into gray asexuality. Urchincrawler (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep certainly it's undoubtedly referenced with reliable sources. not all of them are, but there are more than 5 RS and at least more than 10 that are not RSP.

:All its content is verified with inline citations and is definitely notable beyond asexual community. I wouldn't oppose a merger though. --MikutoH ^talk! 14:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• :Delete: Argument against merging (incorporating), or redirecting; this is a neologism: {{tq|To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term.}} Anything short of deletion and Wikipedia is advancing neologism, adding to the increased usage of the term. One questionable source stated that those who identify as aceflux automatically identify as asexual. Another, equally questionable states the subject falls within the asexual Spectrum. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable and WP:independent sources, I looked at the sources on the article. Two, "What does it mean to be aceflux? This micro-label is gaining traction in the asexual community" and "A-flux" (in Brazilian Portuguese)" reference the subject. The subject is supposedly an "inherently ever-changing identity". The rest of the sources are about various asexual, asexual-affirming, or the asexual spectrum. [https://gaysifamily.com/lifestyle/pride-is-for-everyone-until-it-isnt/ One source] is a hijacking as a form of advocacy. A crash course (44 tabs determining notability) can include Asexuality (Sex-negative, Sex-neutral, and Sex-positive) cupiosexual, akiosexual, fraysexual, autochorissexual, demisexuality, Aromanticism (aro-ace), akoisensual (not the same as akiosexual: Also referred to as akionesexual and lithsexual), demisensual (demiromantic), sensualflux, acespike, pansexuals, Omnisexual (like pansexuals but are not gender-blind), quoisexual, orchidsexual, burstsexual, Skoliosexual, gray asexuality (between asexuality and sexuality also referred to grey-ace), allosexual, placioromantic, abroromantic, Gynesexual, Apothiromantic, Androsexual and Requiesromantic. If one is exploring their sexual orientation, they are "questioning". -- Otr500 (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - since the subject is defined as a "microlabel", it does not warrant its own article. I also share Otr500's concerns about WP:NOTADVOCACY, and rather questionable content of the sources. Brat Forelli🦊 07:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. (changed from "Weak Keep"). Some academic sources are there, but is a neologism and started in Tumbler. If it were to make it into a dictionary, then maybe worth mentioning somewhere. But not a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk)
• Delete, I have been involved in many conversations related to "terms" and "neologisms" and so have experience on how Wikipedia generally treats this subject matter. The other editor who wrote a lengthy and well supported in policy argument which touches on the "term" aspect is correct. This does not stand to have an article by itself unless sources were found which do not simply use the term, but are about the term. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.