Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisexualism

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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Antisexualism

Antisexualism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

You've got to be kidding me. This article has existed since 2004, and in all that time has not had one single reference?

OK, there are two references in this long article - one is to an internet forum post (O paragon of scholarly erudition!) and the other is for a quote from H. P. Lovecraft, whose views on matters of human sexuality carry as much weight as those of my next-door neighbor.

It's not just that the article consists entirely of a collection of rank speculation, flat-out invention, and random woolgathering. If there was such a thing as "Antisexualism", we could burn it down to a stub and start over. And if the article isn't deleted I propose to remove all the unsourced material (==all the material) and burn it down to a one-sentence stub. But what would the stub say? "Antisexualism refers to the ideology of opposing sex and the social movement encompassing this ideology" I guess - but there isn't even a WP:RS reference for that.

There is no such thing as "Antisexualism" in any notable, organized (or even unorganized) form. If there were, there would be reliable sources showing that. But there aren't. The article has existed for seven years. That's long enough to find a reference, I think. (I mean, is anyone against sex? Sure there are groups of celibates - monks, Manichaen elect, Shakers, asexuals etc. - but they aren't against sex. They just don't have sex themselves, which is entirely different thing altogether. The only description in the article of an organization which is actually against sex is from 1984, which is... fiction.

As alternative to deletion, the article could be moved someplace where it could serve as a "what not to do" example of Wikipedia:Original Research. But there is no place for this in article space. Herostratus (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there's are websites which have attracted a fair number of users expressing similar views, and a certain strain of thought along such lines has existed for thousands of years, from ancient Gnosticism to Orwell's "Junior Anti-Sex League" in 1984. So it's not a hoax or joke, and it doesn't deserve to be treated like a hoax or a joke... AnonMoos (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"Websites that have attracted a fair number of users" includes birther sites, truther sites, Aryan Brotherhood sites, you name it. That means, precisely, nothing. We want reliable scholarly or journalistic sources here. I don't know about the ancient Gnostics and I'm perfectly willing to believe that they were celibate, but I'm not willing to take anyone's word for it that they were "Antisexualists", which would be something entirely and completely different. And Orwell was writing fiction, I already mentioned that. Look, don't you think it's pretty remarkable that a "certain strain of thought along such lines has existed for thousands of years" without leaving a trace in any reliable source? I find that quite remarkable. Herostratus (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What the heck is that supposed to mean?? I object strongly to your pointlessly sneering and jeering tone throughout (which contributes absolutely nothing to constructive or productive discussion of the subject), while your hasty and ill-informed assumption that anti-sexualism has never existed in any form is simply ridiculous and absurd, and really does nothing to build mutual confidence (and in fact ends up presenting yourself in more of a negative light than what you are attempting to sneer and jeer at). There are plenty of available sources on ultra-ascetic Gnosticism, on Origen and St. Jerome strongly preferring perpetual virginity over marriage, on the Skoptzys etc. etc., and I presume that such sources are cited in the specific articles on those movements and persons. However, this particular article is about anti-sexualism in itself (not as an embedded part of any one particular historic religious doctrine, and in modern times often not connected with religion at all), and acceptable sources which take an overall survey of anti-sexualism (as opposed to focusing on technical details of Origen's philosophy or whatever) have been hard to come by, despite the fact that a significant number of people are interested in the subject. You throwing around a bunch of derogatory epithets purely at random really does nothing to clarify any issues or problems that exist with the article. AnonMoos (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The concept that humans, or at least those trying to gain a higher spiritual level, should reject sexuality is found in Hinduism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, Christianity (although not as the official stance of the established church), and in various new religious movements and New Age thinkers (Leo Tolstoy for one). Is it one thing that should be the topic of a WP article, or unrelated aspects of different topics.? I don't know the answer to that. Borock (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I do. There is a perfectly good article, Celibacy, which covers all this. Herostratus (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Not exactly the same thing. I have personally discussed this with Roman Catholic priests. The official position of the Church is that the reason for celibacy is so that people can focus on God and their missions, not that sex itself is bad.Borock (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 01:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment from nominator. Perhaps I should have have just made this point and left it at that: it's not a real word. It's not in Wiktionary. It's not in Merriam-Webster. It's not in dictionary.com. It's not even in Urban Dictionary. My Google search finds: the first hit is this article. The rest of the top hits are blogs, forums, wikis, that sort of thing, and Wikipedia mirrors, then it gets thick with the internal links to this article from within Wikipedia. I'm not saying that no one has ever said or written the word - it's properly constructed (anti + sex + ism) and expresses a thought. But so does anti + fool + ism or any other number of like constructs. But that doesn't make it real word. Only real-world notability as shown by reliable sources can do that. And we're not supposed to have articles with titles that are made-up words. Right? This seems basic. Herostratus (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - before making that particular argument, perhaps you ought to try clicking the Books and Scholar links at the top of the page. You'll find you do get some hits. (How exactly they relate to the subject of this article, I've yet to look at in detail, but you will find that the word is apparently used by academics.) LadyofShalott 04:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It would have been nice if you had not made abrasively dogmatic assertions on a subject which you appear to know almost nothing about, and had refrained from implying that anyone is the Orly Taitz of Wikipedia. P.S. It's simply a fact that there are some long-established articles which have titles which barely occur outside of Wikipedia (e.g. "Nontrinitarianism", "Oxford spelling" etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That is hyperbolic, and I am not implying anything of the sort. (If it somehow seemed I did, that was certainly not my intent.) However, you said antisexualism is not a word, and it clearly is. LadyofShalott 05:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Also, you'll note that I have chosen not yet to remark on whether or not the article should be kept. I restricted my comments to what was clear until I have further examined the available possible references. LadyofShalott 05:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I was replying solely to Herostratus, not to you at all... My comment had two indentation prefix thingies (the same as your comment), and not one extra, which is the signal that my comment was not inteded to be a reply to yours. AnonMoos (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies! LadyofShalott 05:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - While Urban Dictionary (!) and even a standard Webster's may not list the term, it is used in scholarly publications such as this review in The Journal of Sex Researchand the book on which it is talking. Other sources found in the Google Books and Google Scholar sources that can be clicked at the top of this page. LadyofShalott 05:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, keep; definitely. Per LadyOS. ( You don't want to make a sorceress mad, you know. ) Also, the word is in the Oxford English Dictionary, which gives two quotations for its use. The first of these, from William James' 1890 Principles of Psychology, appears to use the term in a slightly different sense than the article in question: "...what might be called the anti-sexual instinct, the instinct of personal isolation, the actual repulsiveness to us of the idea of intimate contact with most of the persons we meet, especially those of our own sex." The second quotation is from Bertrand Russell's ubiquitous 1929 essay, On Marriage and Morals: "So far we have been considering pro-sexual elements in religion; anti-sexual elements, however, existed side by side." Besides this point, researching the term led me to this faq, which asserts, "Sex is similar to drugs, both in physical and social effects. It places primitive instincts higher than intellect, a human being - a sentient being - turns into a primitive animal... Finally, copulation is aesthetically disgusting." I'm personally very much in favor of turning into a primitive animal from time to time, and I dare say the aesthetic judgment is very different depending on whether one is a participant or an observer, too. But it was nice to have a reason to grin. ;-) Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The idea that sex is wicked and wrong seems remarkably commonplace and is expressed in numerous laws and moral codes. I have rewritten the lead, providing a better reference to support the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep several reliable sources on Google Scholar use this term. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per Ohiostandard's sources. I'm inclined to say that it's a notable topic since James and Russell have discussed the issue. It might be a good idea to trim it down to a stub though since it looks like it's mostly unreferenced. (BTW, I have a userbox that relates to this topic--it is solely for humor purposes and shouldn't be taken as a COI). Qrsdogg (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The issue discussed by the article in question is notable, although the article still is a stub. If sex is not a destructive thing, why being naked in public at most spaces is regarded an attempt against modesty? Why does sex have to be performed in private? Why are children told they came from 'storks'? I could add several more questions. Antisexualism has a great point. Besides, the official position of some religions is antisexual. The Roman Catholic Church and the Gaudiya Vaishnavism, for instance, say that sex should be performed, if at all, only for procreation. I.e, antinatalism is a subject apart from antisexualism. Algorithme (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficient references have been found; perhaps the nom would have done better to look for them than to complain about their absence. Many articles from the earlier period of Wikipedia need considerable work and sourcing, and the solution is to work on them and source them. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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.