Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sapiosexual

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sapiosexual

This was speedy deleted under the vandalism criteria, with the deletion summary indicating something about a personal attack. The current content is identical to previous, and I don't believe that it meets the criteria. No vote. Sean|Black 21:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

for info ... I just copyedit the page; I think it is an improvement ... Vamp:Willow 17:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Term gets 633 Google hits, though I didn't really look to see what type of hits it got. Doesn't look like a personal attack to me. Could stand to be rewritten, though. Hermione1980 22:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm the newbie who wrote the article. Sorry it's kinda weak (I'm new here - first post :). Anyway, I heard the term today, and came to wikipedia for a definition, none found, so did some research in to where it got started, and posted the artcle based on what I saw here about "Metrosexual". Rock808 22:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a personal attack, but a neologism created by a non-notable blogger. One of the top google hits (out of only 47 unique hits) is unwords.com and most of the rest seem to be blogs. Pburka 22:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Neologism. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, in defense of my article, "Metrosexual" is also listed in "unwords.com" and IS listed here in Wikipedia as well. "Ubersexual" is also listed on Wikipedia and is called a "neologism" even in it's definition here!! Other wikipedia entries include pomosexual and pansexuality Also, everyone is "unknown" until they become known, so that point seems rather invalid. It seems that if people are using the word as much as they are, they should be able to look it up here. Rock808 22:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It is true that metrosexual[ity] is also a neologism. However it's a neologism which has achieved widespread use (over 1600 unique google hits and another 150 google news hits). It's also true that everyone is unknown until they become known (in fact, it's a tautology), but Wikipedia's goal is to document notability, not establish it. If you can find some instances of sapiosexuality used in print or the media I will reconsider my vote. Pburka 22:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sapiosexual is used in this film review by SlantMagazine. It gets 1,550 hits on Yahoo. On OkCupid.com (dating site) there are 27 people who list Sapiosexual as an interest, 0 as ubersexual, only 12 listed as metrosexual, 2 listed as pomosexual. These other words are already in Wikipedia yet used less! Social networking site Tribe.net has 126 people in a sapiosexual tribe, whereas ubersexual and pomosexual have no tribes at all. The word is defined in here in the Urban Dictionary. (I'll continue research and add more)
    • Actually, yahoo only has 103 unique hits. If you keep clicking "next", it stops on page 11. And a lot of the hits that it did find appear to be duplicates. I think that yahoo's duplicate detection isn't as sophisticated as google's. However I think that you're making a strong argument for the deletion of ubersexual and pomosexual. I'm going to list ubersexual, but I think that pomosexual is borderline notable. Pburka 00:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Pburka FreplySpang (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. We can reconsider if the word gets popular. Rhobite 00:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, after reading the policy of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", then I see how it's possible there is not enough data on this yet to get an ENCYCLOPEDIA entry, but it bothers me that no admin here suggested moving it to the Wiktionary (which I knew nothing about). Rock808 02:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    Same deal there are here. Wiktionary isn't there to popularize new words, but to report on already widespread usages, which this doesn't seem to be. FreplySpang (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    Well, Sapiosexual seems to be used more commonly than other similar terms which HAVE been accepted in Wikipedia. If a word is being used and I don't know what it is, then where DO you suggest I go to look if not here?? 70.112.22.25 03:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    Google? Or ask the person you saw using it? There are plenty of communities (Internet and otherwise) that have internal jargon/slang that doesn't appear in general references. FreplySpang (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    That's ridiculous. If someone used the word "love" and I did a google on that I'd have millions of links to pages where people use the word, but that does not DEFINE it. How many hours of looking at how people use it would it take to get just an "idea" of it's many possible meanings. That's why we have a dictionary or encyclopedia. A single source to directly get an answer as to the meaning and enfluence of a word or topic, it's history, evolution, and references.
  • Weak keep. I considered speedying this last night, but there were enough Google hits to suggest to me that a worthy article could be written with just a little more than would be proper for a dictionary entry. Most of the hits, though, were other people using it on their blogs. Daniel Case 02:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Transwiki, if Wiktionary wants it. Non-notable neologism. android79 02:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep probably better to Transwiktionary. Its just another neologism... but its certainly got a few people using it... more so than some of the stuff on the Simpsons Neologism list.  ALKIVAR™ 07:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - wiktionary's popularity has made it a launching pad for meme wannabes; it takes no time whatsoever any more for a new word to appear on some blogs/sites. This is a term that somebody made up within the last few weeks/months. If his/her sexuality was dependent on blogs about podcasts, we could create blogcast-o-sexual and jump on three bandwagons at once! - DavidWBrooks 13:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Blogs ARE the new media. More paper news print will be replaced with news blogs and RSS. Just because you see something on a blog doesn't mean it should be discounted. The validity should be based on amount of use/acceptance. Rock808 13:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - were this a neologism used solely by one person I might agree with the call for a deletion, however this is a word that has spread widely in the 'blogosphere' outside its original source. Unlike some neologisms it also fulfills a need for such a word-expression and, I note, pre-dates blogosphere, etc. Additionally, re DavidWBrooks's comment above, there appears to be no intent to use WP as a 'launch pad' as this is a term with pre-existing widespread usage on multiple continents. --Vamp:Willow 16:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Please explain how 47 hits are "spread widely in the blogosphere". User:Zoe|(talk) 22:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. --Fire Star 17:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, absolute, acknowledges neologism that does not have widespread traction. Google for yourself, eliminating Wikipedia mirrors, if you don't believe me. I count maybe 50 hits, and I'm being super-generous. Wikipedia is not here to help you popularize your non-notable memes. Nandesuka 18:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - I still believe in the old belief of 'where two or more are gathered together'.. Might not be very pagan of me but 'oh well'..--angelus dolorum - bdsm writer and poet 19:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • User's first and only edit. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Used by a small but growing subculture. Kit 20:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism with 47 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - the word has been in use for months, it fills a need, and applies to a small but vocal segment of the pouplation 69.248.183.237 22:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - it's an important word who's popularity is growing, there are around 600 users on livejournal who list sapiosexual/sapiosexuality as an interest, and another 30 or so communities who do the same Baerana 22:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism used by a small group of navel-gazers. Come back when it shows up in the real world, like (shudder) "metrosexual". --Calton | Talk 01:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Here is a substantial list of people who list sapiosexuality as an interest. Even if it is only beginning to be used off Livejournal, is almost 500 people still not notable enough to merit an entry? Wikipedia is not paper, and once a word has this kind of following it deserves a write-up. Yes, it is not as big as metrosexual but Britannica will probably have a metrosexual article if it doesn't already. Including emerging words like 'sapiosexual' makes wikipedia better than britannica. If the word falls out of use what's the harm -- we can revisit this in a years time and discuss it again then. There seems to be substantial support for keeping this article as well as substantial support for deleting it -- I certainly see no consensus at this time. Kit 05:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Livejournal-created neologism with 49 unique Google hits. Sockpuppet-supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Carlton and others --rogerd 04:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's borderline, but I think the author of the article has made a strong case for keeping it. I also think if it's deleted, it's just going to reappear again given growing usage. --Jakob Huneycutt 06:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete bloggercruft.  Grue  17:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not seem to have made it out of the blogs. -- JJay 18:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I have finally found a term that describes me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.150.98.18 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 14 December 2005
  • Strong Keep I first heard the word two years ago at a party (in real life). I have since heard it often (in real life). I know people who own the T-shirt (though I wish I knew where they got it). I've used the word to describe myself to other human beings (in real life). I would estimate that of the people I know (in real life), aproximately 300 of them would know exactly what I'm talking about when I say "sapiosexual", because they've heard and used the term before. I know this mainly because they attend the same parties where I hear and use the term.  :) Maybe it's just a Seattle thing, but the word seems like it's here to stay. lunaverse 06:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to add a comment to my comment: I was flipping through the replies to the original "sapiosexual" LJ post, and saw that someone there stated, "I've had similar success spreading the fabulous word infornography". This is a word I have not heard in real life or general usage at all (outside of the anime show Lain), yet obviously there is a Wikipedia article devoted to that particular neologism. Granted there are more Google hits for "infornography", but seriously... how many have ever actually used or heard this word IRL? Remember that once upon a time, words were created and spread into common usage long before Google or the internet were developed. People still speak to each other face to face, and this should be as much (if not more) of a yardstick than number of Google hits. lunaverse 06:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Not to mention if we can have an article on the O RLY? meme, I see no reason this cant stay.  ALKIVAR™ 09:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment Agree with both Alkivar and Lunaverse. Like Lunaverse I first heard this term in real life. Kit 09:12, 17 December 2005 (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.