Talk:Lumbersexual
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Insertcleverphrasehere in topic Notability
 | The contents of the Lumbersexual page were merged into Lumberjack on 24 January 2017 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lumbersexual redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Redirect? edit
This article will probably be deleted or redirected. I recommend a soft-redirect to Wiktionary. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Completely coincidentally, I just searched for "lumbersexual" and forked over the content from the Lumberjack article, believing a separate article was justifiable based on the number of sources talking about the neologism. Only after forking the content did I see the redirect discussion. Yes, the article needs to be expanded, and I added some external links for additional context, but surely there are enough sources to justify an article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Media culture, parodies? edit
«He's a lamberjack and he's ok…»? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.190.161.115 (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Notability edit
Flash in the pan. A tiny bit of usage, briefly, but this WP:NEO did not make the cut. WP:NOTDICTIONARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Notability doesn't expire, there are plenty of sources about this subject. even fairly recent ones InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Insertcleverphrasehere, similar articles were tagged for notability even though the articles themselves showed in-depth discussion of the terms. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Erik Then those tags were inappropriate as well, the policy in question can be found here: WP:NOTTEMPORARY. It is pretty clear on the subject. In any case, per my link, there IS ongoing coverage of this topic, so that policy isn't even needed here. InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Insertcleverphrasehere, similar articles were tagged for notability even though the articles themselves showed in-depth discussion of the terms. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)