Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apothisexuality

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]