Deletion of Unlabeled sexual orientation

Comment: At the end |neologism , it says that if there's a noteable topic for which no well established term exists, we should use a plain english phrase. So I dont think that phenomena for where there's no established term need to off bounds.  I had this confirmned a few weeks back by the folks on the no original reasearch notice board.  Granted it seems to be hard to find good sources, but the ones already present seem to confirm the noteability of the phenomena
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: to Pomosexual, for now. I might change to "keep" if someone replaces the original research? tag in the article lead with a |reliable source that states the difference
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Pomosexual'' is a neologism and our article starts out by declaring this.  The word was quite unfamiliar to me and, per , we should not use such words as they will baffle our readership.  This article has a better title for the ordinary reader which is consistent with the advice of : "''use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English''".  Pomosexual should be merged into it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: essentially |synthesis/|original research; the list of real people raises  issues
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:OR||WP:BLP)