Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthrosexual


 * 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 Delete - This is a WP:Neologism, the only reference provided to the article name is to an unreliable source. Interestingly this article was previously deleted via a WP:PROD in September 2006 as a WP:Neologism for an entirely different usage of the term (Anthrosexual = attracted to men). Although the history of Greek sexuality is notable, it is covered, or should be, elsewhere and lends no support to the usage as the term was never used by the Greeks and there are no reliable sources provided where this is used to refer to Greek sexual beliefs. Although Google searches are great, contrary to the creator's assertions it's the contributor's responsibility to source his or her contributions not the community's to research outside the references provided; furthermore, a Google search provides only unreliable sources, including numerous blog results which beyond being unreliable indicate a lack of an accepted definition of the term. Additionally, identifying this as a peculiar phenomenon is WP:OR absent reliable sources. If the Greek history sources were removed, the only remaining sources relate to homosexuality and two references of questionable notability where notable persons have identified themselves as of undefined sexuality but without any explanation in the references to what that means to them. Procedural history: this article was created with the title Undefined sexuality on 2008-03-27, tagged for CSD#A1 by User:Undead warrior here and CSD declined by User:Victao_lopes. The article was then proded by User:Undead warrior per WP:NEO and WP:N with this edit; Prod removed by the creator here, and was nominated for AfD on 2008-03-28 by User:Undead warrior with this edit. On 2008-03-30 the article was moved by User:Cooljuno411 to Unidentified sexuality with this edit. The article was then copy-pasted back to Undefined sexuality with this edit, AfD tag and all. On 2008-03-30, User:Cooljuno411 moved the article to Anthrosexual with this edit and removed the AfD tags from the article with this edit; User:Undead warrior replaced the AfD tags here resulting in a new date. Although this article remains the subject of a 2008-03-28 nomination notwithstanding the date on the current tag, it has been five days since the tag was replaced, nonetheless. (BTW, although unrelated to this decision, this was improperly partially closed by User:Cooljuno411 with this edit which made closing a pain as I searched for where REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD had gone, so this was not categorized for the last few days). I note all of this because 1) I needed to sort it all out for myself, and 2) in case there is a DRV, due to the cut and paste, the article Unidentified sexuality contains history related to this article which would need to be restored and the histories merged if this article is ever undeleted. Unidentified sexuality and Undefined sexuality are both being deleted per CSD#R1. Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Post closing note: While deleting articles and redirects, I additionally identified the page Anthrosexuality which was changed to a redirect to Pansexuality in Oct 2006 and which User:Cooljuno411 changed to a redirect to Anthrosexual. Because there was discussion and consensus in 2006 to have this redirect to Pansexuality, I have reverted to that version rather than deleting the redirect.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Undefined sexuality Note: this article has been retitled: Anthrosexual

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

PROD tag was taken off, but notability is still not asserted. The one source cited is a dictionary. I think that the information is trivial, and online searches, both Google and Yahoo, yield a wide variety of strange topics, but none of them cover Undefined Sexuality. Delete under WP:N. Undeath (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: Article does not assert notability, but it may have potential. The Google and Yahoo! Searchs really take us to strange and/or unrelated links. I think we should remove most of the unsourced and irrelevant content, no matter how small the remains of the article will be. Merging to a related article also sounds great. Victao lopes (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   —Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I'd suggest a merge/redirect to Asexuality (I suppose Bisexuality would be better), but this article's title "Undefined sexuality" seems an unlikely search term. I see no evidence of "Undefined sexuality" used in the sexology literature, and very little in the non-RS blogosphere etc, at least not in the sense used in the lead section.  This article has one paragraph in the body, and I really don't see how its related to the material in the lead.  There's no WP:RS, and I've looked for WP:V, and find none, which makes this look like WP:OR. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is bisexuality and asexuality the same thing? No, neither is this.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Asexuality - not notable enough for its own article but what can be sourced should be merged into the Sexuality or Asexuality article-- Cailil  talk 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Asexuality is NO sexual desire or attraction. This is an undefined sexuality. Did you even read the article or doing any background research on this topic before you posted? For future reference, you are supposed to read the article and do major background research before you voice your opinion on deleting an article.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ancient Greek sexuality is clearly a notable topic (we have, more narrowly, Ancient Greek eros and Pederasty in ancient Greece). But interpreting it as an example of a cross-cultural sexual category is original research, and the term "undefined sexuality" seems to be a neologism. EALacey (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Bisexuality. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a form of Bisexuality, did you even read the article or do any background research on the topic before you posted here? --Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete no encyclopedic content. That does not mean that a proper sourced article could not be writen on the subject. DGG (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty reffed. to me. And besides, your supposed to do background research on a topic before you post an opinion on deleting it. Did you even go to google? Cause if you did you could find many things on this topic.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per DGG. Also insufficient references. Stifle (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, can you please link to that, when i search DRG, i find a disambiguation with no wiki guideline article--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Important to history and today. The Ancient Greeks are a perfect example, see article. Not to merge with Bisexuality because it is like mac and windows, both OS but have different rules and bases. And is not a form of Asexuality, it is how sexuality was contemplated in the ancient and more recently in the modern ages.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that User:Cooljuno411 is the article's creator. Also, to Cooljuno, comparing this article to bisexuality is nothing near like comparing Mac to Windows. Anyway, you only provided the one source for the article. It fails WP:V in that aspect. Undeath (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have provided additional sources. And for your future knowledge, you only have the right to speak your opinion about deleting an article if you do your own back ground research as well. And i don't know about you, but when i hit google i founds lots of things of this subject.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Remain civil when discussing AfD debates. Your comment, above, was very un-civil. And for the record, I did many google searches on this subject, and when I come up with things like the Urban Dictionary or other various non notable online sites, I nominate it. This term is non notable for it's own article. Being merged is the best option for it, other than delete. Undeath (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

*Keep and rename-to somthing more in line with a term in actual use for this demographic such as "unsure sexual orientation" or "questioning" or "anthrosexual" —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewAtThis (talk • contribs) 10:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * After a quick google search, I agree that the article should be renamed to anthrosexual, and i will do so, thanks. I knew this concept wasn't new, or "neologism" or whatever, but i just couldn't get a name on the concept so i just titled the "undefined sexuality" but you have proven the power of wikipedia, that sharing knowledge is a great tool. AND TO ALL YOU PEOPLE WHO JUST SIMPLY SLAPPED A NEOLOGISM ON IT, maybe you should of did a quick google search too, cause its obvious you didn't. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - not sure that masters being screwed by their slaves is mentioned elsewhere. Maybe a rename to something like Sexually Deviancy In Ancient Society, if not keep then aim to merge. -- Bp E ps - t @ lk  11:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note the article was moved to Anthrosexual at this point.

Resolved The article was renamed to anthrosexual. And for future reference, please do research before claiming WP:N because this case proved that many don't. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: This AFD remains open until April 2, per the usual five-day rule. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete UrbanDictionary.com does not establish notability. Fireplace (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I will add additional refs. but for your future knowledge, if you are going to post here you are supposed to do your own background research as well. So please don't base your opinion on one ref. and also, why should it be deleted? I don't claim a sexuality, so that would make me a living reference. And others don't either, so why should the article be deleted? Not everything has to fall into the western culture fashion of hetero,homo, and bi-sexual.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Google Scholar turns up not a single hit on this term. I conclude, therefore, this is a neologism and it should be deleted forthwith as such. Eusebeus (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that chat rooms, online groups, and other organizations that have been formed around Anthrosexuality is a good enough RS for me. By deleting this article, we are simply denying it existence, but we have to own up to it, it does exist, and i don't think we have the right to deny its existence just because it doesn't turn up a search in google scholar. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, if this doesn't exist, then please tell me how sexuality was highly practiced in the ancient world especially in ancient Greece? Lets see, a system of passive and active, which is a form of athrosexuality because they do not claim a sexual orientation. You know the term homosexual and heterosexual were invented less then 200 years ago. Did google scholar tell you that? In addition, if i claim this would it be true? if others do wouldn't it be true? It's the 21st century, people don't have to choose one of the three common sexualities placed in front of us, when can chooce to be like many ancient cultures and not claim an orientation and simply go with what feels right.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * CoolJuno411. This is the last warning to remain civil. Your comments are becoming more and more offensive and disruptive. Please stop making sarcastic comments directed at other users. Undeath (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that i offended you. But i think i have every right to questions peoples motives on why they made that opinion. People should place opinion and reason for opinion. I only reply to people who do not completely justify their answers.
 * They do justify their answers, you just do not always understand their justification. Don't badger the other users. Undeath (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please ref. where i do not "understand their justification", when i respond i am generally telling them that their justification is insufficient and that they need to go into more detail why. Or i have been asking if they even read the article, because saying this is a form of asexuality or bisexuality, which has been the two most common suggestions, just makes me think that person hasn't even read the first 2 words of the article or even googled the term.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, there you go. "...that person hasn't even read the first 2 words of the article or even googled the term". Just because they state something that may seem vague to you, does not mean that they did not do any research. Most AfD debates will have a simple delete with a simple explanation. Having the article's creator badger them over it is bad, and it also shows a bit of article ownership. Undeath (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I said it "makes me think that person hasn't even read the first 2 words of the article..." and if people have the "right" to say it is a form of asexuality, then i should have just as much right to think that they didn't read the article and question their motives on their answer. And i don't have a sense of article ownership i am try to protect a legitimate article form being wrongfully deleted by people who i think haven't even read or researched the article. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm done arguing this with you. Just stop attacking other users on wikipedia. Let the course of AfD take it's own route. Undeath (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to a section in either Sexual orientation or History of human sexuality. This term is in use, but not commonly enough to merit its own article at the moment. Delete section 'Anthrosexual and Undefined sexuality in popular culture' since there is no evidence that the examples given use the word "anthrosexual". David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. It appears to be in moderate use, but the mentions I've read through google seem contradictory to its exact definition, and at least one does call it a neologism.  Any article that relies on a LiveJournal definition as its primary cite has problems, and it would appear that much of the article are the opinions of the page creator, who has decided which definitions she/he likes, and which are "confused".  Perhaps this doesn't belong on Wikipedia until a more authoritative definition can be sourced. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please ref. sites that have a different def. please, i would like to see them.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * comment I'm continuing to endorse deletion. The term "Anthrosexual‎" turns up zero hits on ISI, which indexes Archives of Sexual Behavior, Journal of Sex Research, etc..  This term seems unknown to science, there is no evidence that this term is used by sexologists.  More relevant to WP:N, I see no evidence of the extensive use in reliable secondary sources required to meet the criterion of WP:N. Pete.Hurd (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Question: What about Pansexuality? From where I'm coming, that seems to be do the most similar thing to what the article describes. Celarnor Talk to me  18:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BUt there is a major difference that does not allow them to be similar. Pansexual is an active sexuality, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Anthrosexuality is an unclaimed sexuality. See article for more information, there is a whole sub portion on the difference between the two.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The subsection you added yesterday has no references, it's hard to evaluate the supposed difference between these two topics on the basis of a section that appears to be WP:OR. Your concept of "active sexuality" seems quite different from the examples that turn up in the first few pages of hits on Google Scholar, and appears -like this article- to be Original Research. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into Pansexuality, which also deprioritizes gender. It says, "Gender doesn't matter much - therefore we can be attracted to any and all genders" whereas Anthrosexuality, if I am to believe CoolJuno, says "Gender doesn't matter much - therefore we are not particularly attracted to any or all genders." So it just inverts the same meaning, which perhaps was what CoolJuno meant by it not being active. Even if it is merged, however, the content needs serious work. It seems to contain sections which have no inherent value, and are just uncited responses to the discussion on this talk page. I thing the whole thing could be boiled down to a sentence in Pansexuality. --99.231.118.172 (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a problem with "if I am to believe CoolJuno", and "perhaps was what CoolJuno meant by", which is that an encyclopedia is supposed to be a compendium of reliable information, not a compendium of CoolJuno's opinions. Without reliable sources to document the veracity of the claims made in this article, the article is worthless.

Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, Pete.Hurd. I wasn't intending to defend the article's validity, nor CoolJuno's authorship - I think it's pretty apparent that they aren't acceptable for Wikipedia - but to clarify my proposal of a parenthetical sort of inclusion of it in Pansexuality, saying "some individuals self-identify as anthrosexual, which may be a similar construct"...a little like we've done with omnisexual, which is treated as synonymous. That said, I understand the argument to be had in waiting for anthrosexuality to be documented in reliable sources before including it in anything, period. I've been in the mindset of giving it a mention, because it cropped up in the pansexuality article - in the form of a disambiguation note saying "not to be confused with anthrosexuality" at the top. As a result, I was under the mistaken impression that anthro had more of a general presence on wikipedia - until about 2 minutes ago, when I just checked and realized it was CoolJuno who added it. --99.231.118.172 (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Absolutely fails to satisfy WP:N let alone a stronger standard of WP:V/WP:RS. Putting Livejournal as a source in the first paragraph was a nice touch, though. --Dhartung | Talk 21:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, article does not cite reliable sources that actually speak to the existence of this term and concept. WillOakland (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although the fluidity of sexual roles in Greek and Roman cultures is reasonably well documented, the use of the terms "undefined sexuality" and/or "anthrosexual" to describe this phenomenon is not. (LiveJournal community profiles are about as far from reliable sources as you can get.) Zetawoof(&zeta;) 01:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to sexual orientation or pansexual. --Alynna (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Zetawoof. We've got a concept, exemplified by but not limited to, Greek and Roman understandings of sexaulity, that was actually pretty common in a number of cultures until recent centuries (see, especially, Michel Foucault's The History of Sexuality which deals with this concept in detail). The problem is that it doesn't have a name. CoolJuno has gone and made two titles for this Wikipedia article which return very few hits, and the only refs that can be found are non RS. So we're seeing (understandably), a pile of delete !votes. I'd ask others to reconsider, given that this is a genuine concept, which was synonymous with Greek sexuality (but not limited to these - Venn diagrams would be nice to demonstrate this). Definitely do not merge to pansexual or sexual orientation, which are separate subjects. I suggest that CoolJuno accepts a delete (which will be the likely outcome of this AfD), moves this to userspace, and finds more references, starting with Foucault. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think it is important to get an opinion from someone who belongs to WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and WikiProject Sociology. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have messaged the users who currently belong to WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, if for some reason this AfD is about to end soon, please allow the people who specialize on these subjects to have time to voice their opinion. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Instead of messaging over 30 people about this AfD, it would probably be best (and save you time) to post a topic at WT:SEX. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As a member of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality I reviewed this article as well as the current Wikipedia article for pansexuality as well as doing a google search on the topic. Generally, I feel this term is ill-defined. Just when I thought I understood its meaning the Urban Dictionary article on the topic turned my understanding up on its head. There seems to be a confusion and conflation between the terms "gender" and "sexual orientation" between the anthrosexual entries themselves. It is true that there is a history to the creation of what we know as "sexual orientation," and particularly of people not assigning meaning to their sex acts under the rubric of an identity or orientation. One needn't go back so far as ancient Greece for the evidence. You can find references to this in Chauncey's book Gay New York going back to the not so distant past. However, 1) as this viewpoint of defining one's sexuality by sex acts rather than orientation was never a phenomenon that was historically and particularly named (par for course considering what we are discussing, yes? In this sense the term "Undefined sexuality" is actually more appropriate.) And 2) The term does not seem to have a definition that is currently used and understood by those in the field of sexuality. I feel that the *information* raised here should be moved to a different article if it hasn't already been highlighted elsewhere. Perhaps if appropriate with a note that an emerging term with small usage, "anthrosexual" is beginning to emerge in pop culture to describe this way of viewing sex. As it is, this article seems to be more of the beginning of the creation and legitimization of a term rather than the definition of a term that is already understood. Also the definition given is a quote on the users page and the definition is a Livejournal article. This does not suffice as references. Links to recognized organizations, activism and social movements, terminology used in sexuality documents, academia or other verifiable research, would be convincing. That is my opinion as of now. I will return if there are any amendments.--NoMonaLisa (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete References such as LiveJournal, other WP articles, and a movie review on a blog are not RS. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: If this is indeed the technical definition for this type of sexuality (or lack thereof) - considering that the dictionary reference pans out - then the article is worth keeping. However, it definitely needs to be expanded, and more detailed sourcing is a must. Also, a good portion of the material relating to Ancient Greece and Rome doesn't seem to belong there, and likely needs to be cut. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep as stub - it looks like this concept does exist, but right now the sourcing is atrocious. One of the "references" is Cooljuno's userspace. As others have pointed out, blogs are not considered reliable sources either. This should be turned into a stub and then rebuilt using real sources. Aleta  Sing 12:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Clearly this is an academic term and clearly it is new. Fine. No problem there.  But it must be sourced from academic sources or other highly credible sources such as New Society.  Otherwise it's just somebody's internet theorizing.  This is no place for Original Reseach. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - without prejudice for recreation if notability can be established as per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY. John Carter (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Neither Google-news nor Google-scholar returned any hits for the term anthrosexual. Aleta  Sing 14:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No scholarly sources found in journal databases.-Wafulz (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE EVER KEEP, this is an encyclopedic article that should be included here. Concept exists (see above).  D u s t i talk to me 18:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: With such a strong keep, can you give any sources to improve the article? It's sorely lacking in them right now. Aleta  Sing 19:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- Aleta  Sing 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Whether notability exists or not, I feel that this article should exist because as long as people identify themselves as this; this article should exist. User:Lighthead þ 23:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment But it needs RS to exist on WP. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that chat rooms, online groups, and other organizations that have been formed around Anthrosexuality is a good enough RS for me. By deleting this article, we are simply denying it existence, but we have to own up to it, it does exist, and i don't think we have the right to deny its existence just because it doesn't turn up a search in google scholar. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well strictly speaking we do. Without proper sourcing of articles Wikipedia perpetuates something that might not be properly defined and thus becomes the source of other peoples definitions Self Perpetuation. I can't say strongly enough that Wikipedia just doesn't pre-empt scholarly debate. -- Bp E ps -  t @ lk  00:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cooljuno, that comment indicates to me that you need to read and seriously consider WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS. <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 01:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that whole paragraphs (if sections) need to be deleted for sure; but that's apart from deleting the whole article. User:Lighthead þ 03:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 *  Keep, possible merge Weak keep, possible merge: The subject does appear to exist, and as such I believe an article on the subject should exist as well, although the present article is obviously in need of some work. Is anyone here familiar with the Pomosexual article?  That article could use some work as well, and seeing as they are both terms for people who choose not to identify with any particular sexual orientation I think a merge between the two articles might be in place. —Mears man (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing to light the article on Pomosexual, i can see these articles having a strong relation in the future. I also believe that this article helps debug the argument of a deleting Anthrosexual with the argument that it falls under as neologism. I don't know exactly if this word is a neologism, but i know indefinently that the concept of anthrosexaulity isn't anything new. I feel that this article has every right to be on this site, even if it is a neologism. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But can you find some more reliable sources? I would love to see it stay - properly sourced that is, and blogs don't cut it. <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Giving things another look, my position would probably be better defined as "weak keep", and I've changed it as such. There definitely seems to be historical evidence that the concept exists, and I'd hate to see the article go, but there just isn't a whole lot out there about the actual terms "Anthrosexual" and "Anthrosexuality". Because of this, it's going to be hard to confirm that the term itself actually describes the mindset being discussed.  I've continued searching for references, but I'm just not finding much.  If the article is deleted, hopefully someday there will be more published works about Anthrosexuality out there and the article could be recreated. —Mears man (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's currently a discussion at Non-western concepts of male sexuality about including perspectives of sexuality and sexual orientation that are outside the western, American Psychological Association-style mainstream. The discussion is currently focusing on, e.g., the Native American two-spirit phenomenon, but there's certainly room for a larger-scale (and well-sourced) discussion about incorporating alternative sexual concepts into WP's sexuality and LGBT articles.  But a crappy stub of an article is not the best way to have that discussion.  Fireplace (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - the article seems is largely held together by what appears to be original research with little in the way of encyclopaedic information beyond a dictionary definition of a neologism. The subject described by the term appears to be covered in several other related articles and any relevent encyclopaedic information (although I do not think there is currentky any in the article) could be transferred. If - as suggested above - Wikipedia were to have an article on everything that exists the project would be MySpace by the end of the month. Guest9999 (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not orig. research. Concept proven in ancient greeks. Did you even take a look at the article and read the history section?--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I did read the article. Whilst there are bits which are sourced and may be factually accurate they largely do not directly related to the subject of the article and are likely covered elsewhere in other articles on sexuality and/or ancient history. Most of the sections which link all of the information together and with the article title are tagged as "citation needed" and without sourcing I think it is likely that this linking of the subject matter is original research. To me it seems like these sections are fundamental to the article. Guest9999 (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Mostly original research, and the only source that even defines the term is an online forum. No evidence that this term is more than a "proto-neologism." If we merged only the quality content in this article, there would be nothing to merge. Nick Graves (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not orig. research. Concept proven in ancient greeks. Did you even take a look at the article and read the history section?--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't assume that nobody has read the article. If I invent a concept called "frizzigiggy" and say it refers to the Ancient Greek practice of creating olive oil, that doesn't mean it's been "proven". Existence is not the same as verifiability or tertiary research.-Wafulz (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cooljuno, people have read the article, and are making their critiques thereon. Even though some related ideas are discussed relative to the Greeks, there is nothing in the article that shows that "anthrosexual" is used to describe the situation in the Greeks. For you to combine the two ideas constitutes synthesis, which is considered a form of original research, and not allowed on WP. <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 03:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - House of Scandal (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you care to share why you feel the article should be deleted? —Mears man (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to, but since you asked, I advocate deletion per almost all of the above comments. While I don’t necessarily doubt the existence of the phenomenon described in this article, it is not verifiably defined as "Anthrosexual" or "Undefined sexuality" to my satisfaction.  The meat of this article is original research.  The article seems to be an attempt to coalesce ideas and attach them to these terms rather than showing that these terms are actually strongly associated with the concepts discussed or even that these concepts have been concretely identified.  It is, in short, putting the cart before the horse.  The most solid ideas in this article might already be found in History of human sexuality and other articles.  I’ll add that although it’s not a factor in my vote, I feel that Cooljuno411 could better advance his or her viewpoint through the consistent use of a more polite tone.  Few flies are caught with vinegar in AfD debates. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2008 (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.