Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sapiosexuality (4th nomination)
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
— User:Galobtter, 08:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:NEO||WP:WORDISSUBJECT (Wikipedia:Notability)