Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisexualism (2nd nomination)
require inline citation of improved sources. Let this nomination stay the full 7 days - no "snow" actions, please. At the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisexualism|first nomination, {{U|DGG}} !voted "keep", reasoning ''Sufficient references have been found; perhaps the nom would have done better to look for them than to complain about their absence''; nothing has changed since then, so I couldn't agree more.  After that keep result, I expected that the topic of the ''movement originators'' would receive serious cited academic coverage. Instead, it appears that the far less organized, but much more widespread ''notion'', or ''viewpoint'' has been discussed in the literature. See the plentiful http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Antisexualism%22 Scholar and https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Antisexualism%22 Books search results. At this point, the general topic meets , that is, more than enough informed, independent, reliable sources ''exist'' (if not currently cited) to support the article, so deletion is not the appropriate remedy, per . Editing to cite ''better'' sources is merited, however, and I hope this AfD kicks that process into gear
— User:Lexein, 14:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:PRESERVE (Wikipedia:Notability)