Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apothisexuality

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. I see consensus that the subject does not meet our notability criteria for medical sourcing. Owen× ☎ 23:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apothisexuality

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Another fringe asexuality-related article, à la Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noetisexuality. According to my WP:BEFORE search, "apothisexuality" has not been discussed by any WP:MEDRS/WP:SCIRS—which would be necessary in order to even define the concept since it is a subtopic of sexology—and has received only trivial mention in any academic sources. The "best" sources in the article are pop culture websites like Glam [1], Cosmopolitan [2], and The Tab [3]. All other sources are either unreliable (Times Now), WP:UGC, WP:SPS, trivial mentions, or don't even use the term "apothisexuality".

Further, the concept of "apothisexuality" is essentially the same as other sexology concepts such as erotophobia and genophobia. Unlike "apothisexuality", however, these latter two terms have been used by WP:MEDRS sources. But since there are no reliable sources to link these terms together, I don't think a redirect would be appropriate. Astaire (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Medicine, and Psychology. Astaire (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the argument that MEDRS are required is reasonable. And this definitely fails that criterion. Delete. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references already present in the article are enough to establish notability. Cosmopolitan, one of the references, is a widely-circulated mass-market magazine that is known for its coverage of sexuality. The term "sex-repulsed" may be more common than Apothisexuality, and a move to Sex-repulsed might be appropriate. See this Google Scholar search for several articles that discuss sex-repulsed. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDPOP says: The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. I doubt there is an exception for Cosmo magazine. And WP:GNG requires multiple sources, so which source is reliable besides Cosmopolitan?

If you could point out which sources have WP:SIGCOV of "sex-repulsed" as a concept, it would be helpful. At a glance, those results are all passing mentions of the term. It looks worthy of mention at Asexuality, but not its own page. Astaire (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraysexuality, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aceflux, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sapiosexuality, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attraction to fictional characters, they should exist in Wikipedia somewhere, as much as Aegosexuality, but the current state doesn't make much effort to achieve a better article, which this article deserves to be kept (it can, if someone improve it per WP:HEY. I've added better sources. --MikutoH ^talk! 16:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BELONG is generally not a strong argument. Neither is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And it is strange that you base your argument on those AFD discussions when they all ended either with consensus to delete or merge, or with no consensus.

None of the sources you added in this diff offer significant coverage of "apothisexuality" from a scientific or medical source. It looks like you just ref bombed the page with whatever you could find.

For example, why did you cite Marignier 2019 to support the statement that apothisexuality is not the same as antisexualism? That article only mentions the word "apothisexual" once as follows: On peut donner l’exemple du Lexique du Spectre Asexuel, qui présente les définitions de certaines identités sexuelles (apothisexual, abrosexual par exemple) dont il n’existe évidemment pas la trace dans le dictionnaire tant les dénominations sont récentes et spécifiques à une communauté donnée. (translation: "For example, the Asexual Spectrum Lexicon presents definitions of certain sexual identities (e.g. apothisexual, abrosexual) that are of course not in the dictionary, since they are so recent and specific to a given community." This has nothing to do with the statement where it is cited. These changes are not an improvement. Astaire (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of WP:MEDRS sources. MidnightAlarm (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 07:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Eastmain - I support a move and having "Apothisexuality" be referenced as a colloquial term. wyvens&wyrms (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which MEDRS sources offer significant coverage of "sex-repulsion" or "sex-repulsed" as a concept? And why do we need another page when we already have erotophobia? Astaire (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of WP:MEDRS sources.--Trystan (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More sexuality cruft. The sources mostly seem focused on asexuality and this seems to be synthesized and constructed far beyond that terms relevance. A lot of the sources are also not in English, which suggests this is an attempt to force an article into existence by grapeshotting sources. Metallurgist (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as cruft, and do not merge. The article is a mess of original research and improper synthesis. As colleagues above point out, it makes claims for which we need MEDRS, but even if those were rephrased as claims by individuals about their own identity, there isn't isn't enough substance distinct from established topics such as Erotophobia and asexuality. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2025 (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.