Deletion of Anthrosexual

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: without prejudice for recreation if notability can be established as per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:VERIFIABILITY)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: the article seems is largely held together by what appears to be |original research with little in the way of encyclopaedic information beyond a #DICT|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOT||WP:NEO)