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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Undefined sexuality Note: this article has been retitled: Anthrosexual[edit]

Undefined sexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (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)[reply]

Is bisexuality and asexuality the same thing? No, neither is this.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

*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)[reply]

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)[reply]
ResolvedThe 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please ref. sites that have a different def. please, i would like to see them.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
I have messaged the users who currently belong to Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
As a member of Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- Aleta Sing 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But it needs RS to exist on WP. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. -- BpEps - t@lk 00:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cooljuno, that comment indicates to me that you need to read and seriously consider WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS. Aleta Sing 01:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Aleta Sing 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Aleta Sing 03:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to share why you feel the article should be deleted? —Mears man (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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.
More