- 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Sources were added. PeaceNT 06:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A pretty solid example of what WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms deems inappropriate. A dicdef on a neologism "coined by members of an early, private e-mail list", and a bunch of unreferenced OR describing its spread through the internet "autism rights community". No effort to find sources has been made since the article was tagged as unreferenced over half a year ago. Krimpet 17:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn, as people have now found many reliable sources of this term being used as a concept in scientific circles I guess it's worth keeping, as long as the OR is cleaned up big time and the article's focus is shifted to actual scientific use of the term rather than its use as a wacky neologism by autistic folks. Krimpet 02:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete per WP:NEO, as there are currently no sources to demonstrate that the term is in widespread use. Delete unless sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Neurotypical -Wikipedia" returns 59300 Google hits. The term seems to be in actual and relatively widespread use. --Kizor 18:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Added a ref to a scientific journal use of the term. Seems to be widely used per the Google hits cited. Inkpaduta 19:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess if scientific circles have started to adopt the term it is arguably notable. However this article still has no potential for expansion past a WP:DICDEF, as it's basically just a synonym for "non-autistic". It may be suitable for a Wiktionary entry. Krimpet 22:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. WP:NEO and WP:RS. Term does not appear in wide use. Dragomiloff 00:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Found 8 more refs, added a few. Probably more. The present article discusses the meaning of the concept and the use of appropriate nomenclature, so it is encyclopedic.DGG 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep People will encounter this concept and want more information about it, and for many people the first choice for reference is Wikipedia. Effort needs to be made to ensure that this article is balanced and not promoting a particular point of view, but it is topical and relevant to inclusion in a modern encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xnuala (talk • contribs) 02:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC). Thanks HagermanBot!! I completely forgot to sign![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.