Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sapiosexuality (4th nomination)

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 merged to OkCupid, until such time as substantial content develops. Although a reasonable number of sources exist to show that the word exists and has a consistent definition, no showing has been made that the article can be increased beyond the current dicdef. It has been pointed out that this word has been used in contexts outside of OkCupid, but it remains clear that the primary association of the word is with OkCupid, and other uses can be discussed in the context of its origination with that website. bd2412 T 02:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sapiosexuality[edit]

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

Term is WP:NEO and is mainly used in reference to dating websites like OkCupid, as all of the sources in the article show. Although a few scholars have mentioned the term to document that it exists, it is not a term that academics use. It is not a sexual orientation. The current entry is also a WP:Dictionary entry. This topic can be easily covered in the Online dating service article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It may not be recognised by the scientific community, but it is a term that's been thrown around plenty in popular culture and there are many reliable sources that discuss it. And if the article is a dictionary entry atm that should be cause for change, not deletion. Passes WP:GNG easily, especially with coverage in the Toronto Star ([1]) and The New York Times ([2]) newspapers with the largest weekly circulation in Canada and largest combined print and digital circulation in the United States, respectively. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indy beetle, what is there to state about the term beside the fact that it is a category used on some dating websites? WP:Stubs are not ideal. Per WP:Neo, neither are articles on neologisms. And per WP:No page, not every article needs its own Wikipedia page. This one certainly does not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging also exists, which is why I noted that this topic can be easily covered in the Online dating service article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OkCupid, I'm not aware it has any widespread use outside of one website.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not actually exist, it's just a made-up thing by a dating website. The source coverage that is present discusses it only within the context of it's creator, a line or two at Okcupid is enough. TheValeyard (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is too esoteric and lacks widespread and in-depth coverage. It wouldn't surprise me if this is just a passing fad in terms of it being a term. It is a case of Wikipedia:Too soon at the very least.Knox490 (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete and Soft-Redirect to Wiktionary. Clearly a neologism (from 5-ish years ago), but used well beyond OKCupid, so a redirect there would be inappropriate. (the "Further reading" shows examples, though that section has obvious issues). A soft-redirect to Wiktionary seems to be the best option here, as I see no content other than a WP:DICTDEF here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just seen [3] (via Hacker News) about this. I have no prejudice against re-creation with better sources in the future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DictDef. Or Non Notable Neologism. Pick one. Carrite (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG - all WP:NEO says is that there must be secondary sources on it - which do exist. It does not put a especially higher standard for neologisms, just that merely being used is not enough. I think there's also enough on cultural perception etc for WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Stuff like With increased visibility has come a backlash: Some say declaring a sexual preference based on intelligence is pretentious, elitist or insulting to people with disabilities. etc. As powerenwiki pointed out, there's a journal artice on it published in Intelligence (journal) [4] that uses the term. Could add some information from that. Won't be a huge article but that shouldn't matter. I think there's enough for a criticism section from articles, history section on its first use and emergence as a term, and psychology section using that study. There's easily enough coverage unrelated to okcupid, not sure where that's from. Not sure if I'll have the time now to expand on it - I'd request userfication if it's deleted and I'll see about expanding it if i can. Like this daily dot article says - Sapiosexual: It’s the latest sexual identity causing a lot of controversies. You may have heard of it from OkCupid, which has included it as a sexual orientation on its dating platform, or from the Daily Beast’s Samantha Allen, who criticized the term’s very existence. Or maybe you stumbled across the New York Times‘ sapiosexual exposé from June 2017, exploring what it means to be more attracted to someone’s brain over their looks. Not just okcupid. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic clearly is "worthy of notice" given the discussion in the New York Times, etc—this means it passes our general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Currently the article is a stub and dictionary definition; however, the article can and should be expanded rather than deleted. Malinaccier (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: See Talk:Sapiosexuality for Czar's take on the concept's notability and the article's possibility for expansion. Malinaccier (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--a few recent write-ups (well, old ones, and no new ones--so it hasn't really caught on) do not make for a subject that meets the GNG; we're falling victim to a recentist addiction to fairly trivial mentions. If this weren't trivial, we'd have more and more serious hits in books etc. than this footnote--which isn't better than our article (and makes me question Wiley). I have, however, ordered a copy of this book--mreow. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - despite the Delete and Salt SNOW vote on the last (3rd) AfD, the term appears to now be a notable thing. This just popped up today in the Daily Mail. [[5]] From the article: The term 'sapiosexual' has recently received widespread media attention and speculation as it grows in popularity. And this yesterday: [[6]]TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[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.