Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monosexuality

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 03:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monosexuality

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fringe term (it doesn't appear in Kinsey, someone's trying to backdate the concept) without currency in RS that, as the article points out, is used in derogatory fashion towards gays and lesbians. In fact, a number of the sources that mention it even point out that no one really uses it and that it's a spurious concept. (Careful when searching; "monosex" has scientific applications and that's most of the GBooks hits, and there's also an application by French theorists to mean sex segregation which takes care of some of the rest.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently underdeveloped but it does not claim that Kinsey used the term, it only references his behavioral statistics. The term is also, in fact, used in the refereed literature as can be seen here and here, and has been used in books and discussions for at least a couple decades. The other usage of the term pertaining to polyamory also has reliable citations. Evolauxia (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's used in derogatory fashion towards gays and lesbians, but no one really uses it? Those claims cannot both be true. If the first claim is verifiably true, then the fact needs to be discussed somewhere (cf. Nigger), and if not here, then this page should at least redirect to where it is discussed. The point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopaedia - a compendium of human knowledge - so whether not something is on the fringes is irrelevant. Wiki is not paper, so the traditional requirement to drop fringe topics from old-fashioned, paper-based encyclopaedias no longer holds. The only relevant concerns are whether or not the concept is sufficiently coherent as a topic in its own right (and even if not, redirection is often preferable to deletion), and whether or not there already exist sources of verifiable information about the topic. On those grounds, the article as it stands is not showing much promise, but there are books that take the concept seriously - such as this apparently award-winning volume - so I suspect that it could be improved. -- Oliver P. (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, most educational and encyclopedic. Good potential for expansion as quality improvement project and collaboration. — Cirt (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While this seems somewhat fringe-like, it appear to be mentioned enough in literature that an article discussing it is not a bad idea. It is fine to indicate with sourcing (because the article does need improvement) that it is not widely-used term, and here is where it is used most often, etc. I certainly never knew i was monosexual until five minutes ago.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somewhat confusing term, with perhaps most people thinking that it was being sexually attracted to a person with mono, like I would have guessed, but there are enough references found. I doubt the term is clearly etched in the popular consciousness with one meaning, that is, I bet there is still some confusion about the term, with less confusion in the psychological/scientific community. Added references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I always heard you got mono from french kissing, but catching it purposefully would be a fetish the internet hadn't invented yet.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:33, 2 October 2014 (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.