Human-oriented sexualism : In reality any sexuality peference that is directed at non-humans would almost certainly be regarded as a paraphilia in mainstream psychology, but these articles are built almost 100% without any actual clinical research, just opinion/"analysis" articles from dubious publications which seem intent on hijacking LGBT rethoric.  The fictosexuality article may be fixed eventually with some work to reduce the obvious POV issues but I don't see how this article is anything but an undue weight spin-off.  Both this an the main article have been created by the same editor, who very clearly seem to be a single purpose account which does nothing but link to these two articles and insert mentions of the subject in random pages.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 17:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions .  ★Trekker ( talk ) 17:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete .  this is fringe nonsense.  ltb d l ( talk ) 02:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't delete It's important to note that this article is a translation from Japanese, and there has been multiple research on this concept in Japanese, as indicated in the references.  Academic research extends beyond clinical investigation to include philosophical or theoretical studies, which are not merely opinions.   Furthermore, the sources for this article include peer-reviewed sociological qualitative research.  Since this is an article about discrimination, it is not neutral to assume it is “hijacking LGBT rhetoric,” despite multiple academic studies available.  Underestimating the research accumulation from non-English speaking countries is Western-centric.  While the article of fictosexuality may display bias toward East Asian activist discourse, I believe this article is valuable as an informative piece on Japan.  Zuzz22 ( talk ) 09:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] this is your second edit, the first being this fascinating edit to the article ... ltb d l ( talk ) 11:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, this idea does not have wide mainstream research in Japan either.  It's a frine concept that has gotten some mentions as a curiosity.  Using Japanese Wikipedia to push obscure sexual ideas had sadly become a trend recently.  I've seen several attempts at translating bad Japanese Wikipedia articles into English for paraphilias because the obvious reality is that most English speaking editors do not read Japanese, so as long as the source look good and the langauge seems academic most editors leave it.  It's an attempt at trickery.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete (or maybe very limited merge?).  This is claimed to be a term originating in the Japanese academic field of " fictosexuality studies ".  Oh dear.  That seems to be a red link...  Do we have any reason to believe that such a field even exists?  So what about the term itself?  I don't speak Japanese but Google Translate renders the Japanese article in a way that is shorter and more coherent than this one.  Based on that translation, the subject of the article here is "anthropocentricism" (not Anthropocentrism ) which it distinguishes from "interpersonalism".  Google translates various phrases as "(thing) research" when it clearly means "research about (thing)", not actually intending to imply that it is a whole academic field or discipline.  So, in addition to overstating its case, it is not even clear that the article is correctly named.  I don't see a topic here in its own right.  This seems like it is just fictosexuality being defined by its inverse.  In my view this is already covered adequately in the fictosexuality article but I would not object to a very few sentences from this possibly getting merged there provided that they are well referenced.  I wouldn't rule out very brief mentions in Heteronormativity and Amatonormativity provided that there are solid references to support inclusion in those specific places.  Whatever we do, we must not be led astray by WP:OR , WP:SYNTH or dodgy translations.  Most of all, we need to focus on what the Japanese academics actually say and avoid falling into western misinterpretations.  -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 14:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or at very least merge .  The topic has been studied in multiple scholarly sources, so it's hard for me to think that deletion would be appropriate.  If the article is fringe and "advocacy" (which hasn't been proven), then it should be possible to find opposing sources and edit the content with opposing views to balance the coverage on the article.  Until then, it can be marked as {{ fringe }} without needing to delete it.  Because this topic is closely associated with fictosexuality , I can also see a merge as a valid option.  However, it's interesting that one of the allegations is a "would almost certainly be regarded as a paraphilia in mainstream psychology"; "would"?  "almost certainly"?  That doesn't seem to be an objective, concrete allegation — is it or not?  Skyshifter talk 14:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The reason there is little critical coverage is that this very idea is so new (and frankly absurd) that no serious researchers have bothered to actually study the concept.  It's pretty much 100% POV pushing "scholarly" sources from obscure blogs and low quality "journals".  Way too many of Wikipedias articles on sexuality are just filled with borderline oppinion pieces from activists masquerading as soft science, and this and the fictosexuality articles are the worst offenders I think I've ever seen.  This website has frankly become way too forgiving to advocacy pushing, even on LGBT topics (and I say this as a bisexual woman).  ★Trekker ( talk ) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, why did you add back on Wikidata that fictosexuality is a sexual orientation when the wide consensus is that sexual orientations refer only to sexual preferences for gender / sex of persons?  It does not seem to me that that speaks to you being unbiased and objective on this subject.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 15:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] if the wide consensus is that sexual orientation quote unqoute "refer only to sexual preferences for gender / sex of persons" then that would wholly exclude asexuals.  (I say this as an Asexual/Aceflux, nonbinary women)  Remember to WP:AGF .  I don't think this page is "pushing advocacy", "an attempt at trickery", or "hijacking LGBT rethoric".  I do agree it's not completely unbiased and objective.  I'd say to merge this with the fictosexual page based on the WP:GNG while also rewriting both as you are correct about both pages being WP:NPOV .  It should definitely include more about how it's generally considered a mirco-term/label and how it is a fringe topic.  Funtimesale123 ( talk ) 01:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions .  DanielRigal ( talk ) 14:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  What leads you to perceive this article as "100% POV" relying on "low-quality "journals"? For instance, The Japan Sociological Society ( 日本社会学会 ) is Japan's largest academic society for the social sciences, and the Japanese Sociological Review is the top journal of sociology in Japan. The Institute for Gender Studies at Ochanomizu University is run by Japan's most prestigious women's university, and its peer-reviewed journal, Gender Studies , enjoys wide readership among gender researchers in Japan. The Japanese Association of Social Problems (日本社会病理学会) and the Japan Sociological Association for Social Analysis (日本社会分析学会) are members of the Japan Consortium for Sociological Society , comprising major sociological societies in Japan. These journals are evidently reliable sources. As far as I know, Kazuki Fujitaka (藤高和輝) is a well-known queer researcher in Japan who has published several academic books. Masahiro Yamada is a renowned sociologist who has researched Japan's declining birthrate. Given the assessments of these researchers, it would be unfair to dismiss this article as "just filled with borderline opinion pieces from activists masquerading as soft science" simply because the concept is unfamiliar to non-researchers.  Certainly, there is room for further improvement in this article, but that should be addressed by making additions and corrections to the article.  Considering Wikipedia's guidelines, I don't believe this article should be deleted. Gruebleener ( talk ) 19:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are little of what the article covers, it's not even clear that the translations here are accurate. Any of what they can say would be better said in the fictosexuality article, there is no independent notable subject here. ★Trekker ( talk ) 21:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The aforementioned information pertains to the sources supporting the essential content of this article. Additionally, Shin-yo-sha ( 新曜社 ) and Seibundo ( 成文堂 ) appear to be long-established academic publishers. I've made effort to improve the quality of the translation, and with the help of other editors, I hope it can be further refined. Just as separate articles are created for topics like lesbian / gay and heteronormativity , fictosexuality and human-oriented sexualism should be addressed in distinct articles. Furthermore, given that "fictosexuality" is an English-speaking term and "human-oriented sexualism" is a concept originating from Japan, it seems more reasonable to maintain separate articles for each. Gruebleener ( talk ) 19:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No there is no good reason to have a spin-off of an already fringe topic like this just because a few possibly reliable sources have mentioned it, it's still fringe. Soft sciences like sociology come up with new terms for obscure topics all the time, and even reliable sources sometimes publish junk science , especially lately as the publishing industry has become more and more money driven. Fictosexuality is in no reality comparable to homosexuality, which is a mainstream widely accepted phenomenon studied for all of human history, especially in science for the last century. You are very clearly a single purpose editor with activist/advocacy bias here. ★Trekker ( talk ) 21:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Something more rational to compare it to would be xenogenders , which also doesn't have it's own article as it's still a fringe idea that is not widely accepted in the scientific community (and yet far better researched than than this supposed identity). ★Trekker ( talk ) 21:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Discrimination . -- MikutoH talk! 22:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Fictosexuality . I agree that the sourcing here is adequate enough to reject outright deletion, but having a separate article lends WP:UNDUE weight to the fringe view that considering attraction between real humans to be the norm is somehow undesirable or discriminatory. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss the sourcing in more depth... while trying to keep a straight face at all of this. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Fictosexuality or Nijikon § Human-oriented sexualism per Sjakkalle. I'm not opposed to keeping. -- MikutoH talk! 18:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I really don't have strong feelings about this article but noting that while I understand @ Sjakkalle and @ MikutoH 's arguments, WP:UNDUE is about how fringe ideas are represented within existing articles. In this case, the discussion is about whether there's sufficient sources to list have this standalone article which, as WP:UNDUE also notes, "Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth)."  If the sourcing is adequate enough to reject deletion as Sjakkalle then it seems to me the article needs to be rewritten to appropriately describe a fringe viewpoint rather than deletion. DCsansei ( talk ) 09:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Some decades back, Jimbo Wales gave an interpretation of how fringe views should be covered  in relation to the NPOV policy, and one of those ideas, cited in the WP:UNDUE section of the NPOV policy is that "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."  I believe that my "merge" vote above is firmly in line with this content policy. The viewpoint presented in this article, that considering attraction between real and non-fictional humans to be the norm is somehow discriminatory, is held by an extremely small minority. I would say it does not belong in Wikipedia, except that the sourcing makes me just about willing to accept accommodating the material in the ancillary article on Fictosexuality. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I suppose this article could be viewed as the ancillary article where it gets included but that's fair enough. DCsansei ( talk ) 12:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with fictosexuality , this topic is not in any way independent of the other. Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 16:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Generally, articles on sexuality and normativity are separated. For example, allonormativity and amatonormativity have separate articles from asexuality . In fact, this article covers topics beyond fictosexuality, including etymology and background, fan or otaku, law, intimacy and family. Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As an AFD closer, after reading the discussion, I'm leaning towards a Merge but there are also arguments against that outcome and no rough consensus yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is likely that the treatment of "human-oriented sexualism" in Japan is similar to that of " allonormativity " in the English-speaking world. While both terms may not be widely recognized in society at large, there are reliable researches supporting them, and they are used by scholars as well as minority communities. The article on allonormativity is independent and is not treated as fringe, so I believe "human-oriented sexualism" should be treated the same way. Gruebleener ( talk ) 18:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If there is a possibility that they might be the same subject under different names then that would point to a possible merge, not to keeping both. I am inclined to agree with the nomination that the article content is a COATRACK for fictosexuality but if you think that the article title is a synonym for allonormativity then maybe we should consider redirecting to that? DanielRigal ( talk ) 23:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My statement concerns how widely known the terms are and does not imply that "human-oriented sexualism" and "allonormativity" are synonyms. Gruebleener ( talk ) 17:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As mentioned WP:UNDUE , we should consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. I believe Japanese sources should be evaluated impartially. At least it is supposed that this article meet the criteria of WP:GNG Gruebleener ( talk ) 18:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with fictosexuality. This article is just the inverse of that concept; there's no extra content that's gained by having a second article. If a reader is reading the fictosexuality article and clicks on the link to human-oriented sexualism, they gain no new insights; it's simply a waste of their time. Toughpigs ( talk ) 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DanielRigal , Toughpigs , Headbomb ,  and Sjakkalle : wouldn't it work better merging with sexual norm ? -- MikutoH talk! 00:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No. This is a fringe subject that shouldn't be merged with a commonly accepted subject. Toughpigs ( talk ) 00:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with Toughpigs' position and reasoning.  The content here is used when discussing the fringe subject of fictosexuality, and exclusively so.  Per WP:UNDUE , it should therefore be covered in the article on that fringe subject, and not a more mainstream article.  Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Didn't expect it but the topic does seem to have sourcing needed to avoid deletion.  {{ fringe }} seems appropriate and it should be made clear that this is a fringe idea including in Japan so I think a merger to fictosexuality or sexual norm is the best option.  DCsansei ( talk ) 10:39, 29 April 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge