Deletion of Sapiosexuality (4th nomination)

Comment: Passes  - all  says is that there must be secondary sources on it - which do exist. It does not put a especially higher standard for neologisms, just that merely being used is not enough. I think there's also enough on cultural perception etc for . Stuff like {{Tq|With increased visibility has come a backlash: Some say declaring a sexual preference based on intelligence is pretentious, elitist or insulting to people with disabilities.}} etc. As powerenwiki pointed out, there's a journal artice on it published in Intelligence (journal) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289617301551 that uses the term. Could add some information from that. Won't be a huge article but that shouldn't matter. I think there's enough for a criticism section from articles, history section on its first use and emergence as a term, and psychology section using that study. There's easily enough coverage unrelated to okcupid, not sure where that's from. Not sure if I'll have the time now to expand on it - I'd request userfication if it's deleted and I'll see about expanding it if i can. Like this daily dot article says - {{tq|Sapiosexual: It’s the latest sexual identity causing a lot of controversies. You may have heard of it from OkCupid, which has included it as a sexual orientation on its dating platform, or from the Daily Beast’s Samantha Allen, who criticized the term’s very existence. Or maybe you stumbled across the New York Times‘ sapiosexual exposé from June 2017, exploring what it means to be more attracted to someone’s brain over their looks.}} Not just okcupid
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NEO||WP:WORDISSUBJECT)

Comment: It may not be recognised by the scientific community, but it is a term that's been thrown around plenty in popular culture and there are many reliable sources that discuss it. And if the article is a dictionary entry atm that should be cause for change, not deletion. Passes  easily, especially with coverage in the ''Toronto Star'' (https://www.thestar.com/life/2017/03/28/sapiosexual-is-the-latest-it-word-on-dating-sites.html) and ''The New York Times'' (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/nyregion/the-hottest-body-part-for-a-sapiosexual-its-the-brain.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=2FFF70B9616E73CBC6BCD2D6D6D2B253&gwt=pay) newspapers with the largest weekly circulation in Canada and largest combined print and digital circulation in the United States, respectively
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: and Soft-Redirect to Wiktionary.  Clearly a neologism (from 5-ish years ago), but used well beyond OKCupid, so a redirect there would be inappropriate.  (the "Further reading" shows examples, though that section has obvious issues).  A soft-redirect to Wiktionary seems to be the best option here, as I see no content other than a  here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICTDEF)

Comment: The topic clearly is "worthy of notice" given the discussion in the New York Times, etc—this means it passes our |general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia.  Currently the article is a stub and dictionary definition; however, the article can and should be expanded rather than deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)