Allosexuality : Two of the sources on which notability might be based are dictionary.com and Cosmopolitan, neither of which is reliable for this scientific/biological topic.  ByVarying | talk 21:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 22 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 22:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 22:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The previous deletion discussion indicates that the only sources being used were user generated/Tumblr blogs, and that at the time the term was basically absent from google scholar.  The current iteration of the page notes multiple academic studies which have groups of "allosexual" participants.  If we think those sources are insufficient, we can perhaps find more robust sources from Google Scholar ( [2] ), which has over a hundred uses of this term from 2023 alone.  If the use-mention dimension is what's concerning, there may be further discussion of the term itself in one of those academic sources.  I included the Cosmopolitan reference to show that the term is being used in non-academic contexts, but if we feel it's detrimental to the page then it can be removed.  ForsythiaJo ( talk ) 22:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There are multiple scholarly sourcesl like Research Gate as well as many non scholarly uses.  216.174.76.189 ( talk ) 17:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- I find plentiful RS that use or mention Allosexuality, but none about allosexuality.  It is almost less a term in itself than a convenient antonym to asexual, or a catchall for researchers who can't bother being specific about 'miscellaneous' sexualities in their subject pool.  It also does not seem to be used consistently, or with a consistent definition; for some it is a true antonym meaning 'not a sexual', where other, equally-qualified RS use it to indicate a person is 'not hetero sexual'.  To be clear, I fully agree that the term is real, and that is it used pretty widely.  What I can't see is a path to a good article about the term .  Pending at least a few secondary sources that specifically discuss allosexuality qua allosexuality (not as a contrast, and also including a single, effective definition), I don't think that it passes WP:GNG .  I am leaning toward a merge to Asexuality .  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 21:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  monosexuality was coined Karl Maria Kertbeny with a different definition, yet the common definition is used in Wikipedia.  Though allosexual had different definitions, especially regional and uncommon, the most common and global is that it's the counterpart of asexuality.  Is allo the best prefix?  Probably wikt:eu- or wikt:com- would fit better.  Anyways, it's a slang, it has at least two decades.  MikutoH ( talk ) 00:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There are a lot of yesterday's coined unstated terms in the field, but this is not one of them.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 13:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per those above.  Well-enough supported by use in the literature.  BD2412 T 14:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well-enough supported by use in the literature.  See use-mention distinction , as required in the policy WP:NOTNEO .  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 15:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep you can't suggest it continues to fail and cite an AfD 8 years ago.  A google scholar WP:BEFORE check would have demonstrated notability.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 20:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But does it ?  I am still on the fence because I cannot find sources that talk about allosexuality, even though I find myriad ones that use the term.  I am not the nominator and avoid reading previous AfDs to prevent bias from obsolete facts, but I'm still not convinced that there is anything other than a DICTDEF to be written here.  Can you give me some insight, please, into how we would get from where the article is now to an encyclopaedic treatment of the subject (or subjects, since it appears the term is used variously)?  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 21:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Asexual per WP:CONTENTFORK .  If a term has an article, that does not grant stand-alone notability for its opposite.  Also WP:NPOV concerns since the vocabulary "allosexual" is only used in marxist/anarchist circles (from what I understand for I am not the most learned on this topic).  Regardless, its Google trend is much lower than asexual, so keeping both under the article Asexual seems appropriate.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 15:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you provide a source for allosexual only being used in marxist/anarchist circles?  That hasn't come up at all when I've done research/from personal experience, and I don't think any of the current sources in the article support that.  ForsythiaJo ( talk ) 17:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was a hypothesis written on the spot to illustrate my WP:NPOV concerns, which may as well be false.  Though the base argument, WP:NPOV , still likely applies as the Google Trend say it is well underused compared to asexuality (even though they are semantic opposites of each other).  So higher likelihood of it being non-notable "theory" jargon.  I have the Google Trends chart provided below to justify my point: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore? date=all&geo=US&q=Allosexual,Asexual&hl=en बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 17:38, 29 December 2023 (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: keep