Talk:Sapiosexuality (version 2)

Notability
Noting that "Sapiosexual" has been to AfD three times, it's been seven years since the last discussion, and especially over the last three years, the term has had widespread and sustained significant coverage. Its status as a neologism is indeed part of its public reception but the coverage does discuss the idea itself in depth rather than simply its coinage as a neologism. Please  to discuss, as needed  czar  06:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Czar, I feel that it needs to go back to AfD. It's mainly used in reference to dating websites like OkCupid, as all of the sources in the article show, and it is not a term that academics use. It is not a sexual orientation. Definitely a WP:NEO matter. Why do you feel that this WP:Dictionary entry needs its own Wikipedia article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, okay, a few scholars have used the term (mainly to simply document it), but it's rarely used. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a neologism in that the term is new, but not a non-notable neologism. When the concept has been discussed in a dozen different sources over years of time, as this has, the neologism has entered culture. The refs have plenty of detail on how the term and identity have developed. czar  07:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the standard is GNG, not "word becomes used by scholars" or in books. Anyhow,, I'm working on expanding the article here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Galobtter, WP:No page is also a standard. I reiterate that not every notable topic needs its own article. Why do you feel so strongly that we need an article for this topic? As you know, the article was just deleted, and BD2412, the closer, stated, "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."


 * Pinging the other latest AfD participants for further discussion: Indy beetle, TheValeyard, Knox490, power~enwiki, Carrite, Malinaccier, Drmies, and timtempleton. And to everyone, there is no need to ping me to this talk page since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, so I'm seeing if I can expand it beyond a dictdef and create that "substantial content" - that's all. Not sure what your pinging 'em for. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm pinging them because the article was just deleted and you are on a mission to recreate it despite what WP:No page states and the article not being needed. Even Wikipedia articles with substantial content are deleted or merged when not needed. How many times must the article be sent to AfD? On a side note: I also meant to ping Rusf10. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's gained a lot of coverage since the last time - 7 freaking years ago. If I can't expand it much, I'll add whatever there is to the OkCupid article. If I can, I'll recreate the article in alignment with the close. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Like Drmies stated, "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)." WP:Recentism is a valid point. We don't need Wikipedia giving this term more exposure than it deserves. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

No new ones? There's this journal article published "january-february" 2018. There's absolutely no requirement that a term be used in books. Just because it is only widely used in the internet doesn't mean it isn't notable. Nor is sustained coverage a requirement; anyhow there's an nytimes article 6 months ago..too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know that the aforementioned journal was mentioned in the AfD. It does not negate that the term has not really caught on and there is no real substantive coverage of the topic. Drmies is correct that if the term was really worth covering as a separate article, there would be academic book sources covering the term by now. There would be more than that one journal source. What would help its popularity is having a separate article on Wikipedia, which is something I obviously do not support. And as for notability, I already made my argument on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, shouldn't try to promote a term. However if there is enough to write, it should be written... Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:No page, which is an aspect of WP:Notability, not always as a separate article. Furthermore, researchers have long known that people can be sexually attracted to intelligence; it's just that the term sapiosexuality obviously was not used to describe the matter until fairly recently. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so I'll see if there's enough for a seperate article....like I told above, if I can't expand it enough for a seperate article, I won't make it. Good then, that means possibly more can be written on attraction on intelligence (which could fit in an article on sapiosexuality) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, a topic having enough material for a separate article does not mean that it should be a separate article. WP:No page is clear about this. I don't have a lot more to argue on the matter. At this point, we are just repeating ourselves. As for adding sexual attraction to intelligence to this article, that should not be done if the sources don't call it sapiosexuality, and most of the older sources (before the popularity of the term sapiosexuality) don't. Combining such material would be WP:Synthesis. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah why I said "could". See also WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Having enough material for a separate article would generally mean it'd be undue for OkCupid - all nopage says is to see if it can be covered in another article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As seen at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Nonce (slang), I am well-aware of WP:WORDISSUBJECT. And, no, I don't think that a section on sapiosexuality would be WP:Undue for the OkCupid article or the Online dating service article, unless it got out of hand. And in that case, there is the option of trimming the material. WP:No page states more than "see if it can be covered in another article." In fact, it touches on long-term significance, just like WP:Recentism does. And to add more on the topic of subjects covered in reliable sources not always getting a separate article, see Articles for deletion//r/incels. Or Talk:Sexlessness. For years, editors tried to create an Involuntary celibacy article, and that topic is covered in reliable academic book sources, but we still do not have an article on it. The community deleted and WP:SALTED it. And, yes, it is more deserving of a Wikipedia article than sapiosexuality is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah because there was a reasonable place to put the article on /r/incels. It has been covered over the years too. Anyhow, don't have time to argue all day. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are reasonable places to cover sapiosexuality, which is why some editors (including me) voted the way they did. But, yeah, I do not want to debate this all day. I'd only be repeating myself. Best to let others weigh in if they are going to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm mostly with, though I'll hasten to add that I probably overlooked that journal article. Now, I don't think that one journal article means "write the article", and I think there are, as Flyer says, reasonable places to put some of this information. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine, I will see about putting some of this in other places. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean create an article for the topic and mention the content in other articles? If so, I don't think that's what Drmies means. I think Drmies means that it can go elsewhere without having its own article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No that's not what I meant - I meant I'll see about adding content elsewhere, think of an article later (which'll probably only happen when I have the time/motivation to make it..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Has apparently made it into a college textbook on sexuality as a sexual orientation.... see here Overall able to find usage in many (10+) journal articles as an orientation - mostly mentions though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Galobtter, it is not officially recognized as a sexual orientation, which is why, per WP:Due weight, we are not going to call it one at the Sexual orientation article. Sexual orientation is not defined in terms of sexual attraction to intelligence. People are sexually attracted to a number of things about a person, as made clear at the Sexual attraction article, which is another place that the sapiosexuality topic can be covered. You can create an "Intelligence" section there and include not only sources that use the term sapiosexuality with regard to sexual attraction to intelligence, but also those that don't use the word. The section can note the word sapiosexuality and how it came about, where it is mainly used (such as on dating sites), and include the aforementioned sapiosexuality study. Then the term sapiosexuality can redirect to that section. Out of all of the options presented so far, I think that is the best option. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah yeah yeah I'm just noting that ok Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed redirect to OKCupid
That redirect is inappropriate, as there should be an article describing the concept and not a redirect to something about a commercial dating service. The German Wikipedia at least has some content. I’m not a very regular wikipedian, so please excuse my clumsy way of pointing is out. Phellmon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phellmon (talk • contribs) 11:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, I was very surprised when I followed the link from dewiki to enwiki, only to be redirected to a dating website. --M11rtinb (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)