Talk:Demisexual

Attempted recreation of this page

Are77, your attempts to recreate this page, attempts that have been reverted by me (latest example here), need to stop. This is because you are creating a poor WP:Content fork. This topic is already sufficiently covered at the Gray asexuality article; so there is no need for this article. Do read WP:Content fork. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demisexuality from a few years ago. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverted again. Still does not need a standalone article. It is a form of gray asexuality and is still sufficiently covered at the Gray asexuality article, which is small. WP:Spinout, WP:No page and WP:No split absolutely apply here. We are not going to create stub articles or similar for every gray asexual term covered at the Gray asexuality article. WP:NEO is also a concern for most of the terms. Those wanting to contest this should make a solid case here. If not, and the article is restored, I will start a WP:RfC about merging this article with the Gray asexuality article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree because many of the recent sources about demisexuality do not discuss it in the context of asexuality. 92.19.178.109 (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Poor argument for restoring a poor article. The matter of the fact is that demisexuality is a form of gray asexuality, which is an aspect of asexuality. It is not independent of it. An RfC has been started below. And do keep WP:Sock in mind. You've already edited the article as two different IPs. Do not vote as two different IPs or as two different registered accounts below. Random IPs or random new accounts voting below will be marked as obvious socks. Vote once, make your argument, and leave it at that.

On a side note: What newer sources are you referring to? Whatever the case, I point out that, per WP:Due weight, a few sources not tying the term to asexuality (or rather simply not mentioning that it is an asexual identity) does not trump the term mainly being identified as an asexual identity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Should the Demisexuality article be merged into the Gray asexuality article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus to Y merge the two articles.Winged Blades^Godric 04:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

---

One argument is that demisexuality is a form of gray asexuality and is sufficiently covered at the Gray asexuality article, which is small. It is argued that per WP:Spinout, WP:No page and WP:No split, there is no need for "demisexuality" to be its own article. The other argument is that "many of the recent sources about demisexuality do not discuss it in the context of asexuality."

If viewing this from the RfC page or a notification on your talk page, see the small discussion higher up on the talk page for more detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Merge any useful material to the Gray asexuality article. Like I stated above, this article is poor and the topic is already adequately covered at the Gray asexuality article. A quick search on Google Books, seen here and here, shows that demisexuality is but one term covered by the gray asexuality topic. In fact, enough sources use the term demisexuality as simply a term for gray asexuality. For example, this 2015 "Gender and Sexual Diversity in U.S. Higher Education: Contexts and Opportunities for LGBTQ College Students: New Directions for Student Services, Number 152" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 21, seems to do that. It states, "Additionally, some may experience nonconsistent or occasional romantic and/or sexual attractions and may use terms such as gray-A (gray asexual), demiromantic, demisexual, and so on." The source goes on to specifically define demisexuality, but it does not really distinguish it from the other terms. And demiromantic is simply the romantic aspect of demisexual. Also, per WP:Due weight, a few sources not tying the term demisexuality to asexuality (or rather simply not mentioning that it is an asexual identity) does not negate the term mainly being identified as an asexual identity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Merge - I suggest using Draft space to expand and properly cite the article if a WP:SPINOFF is the goal. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep There are 5,810 results for the term on google news and the term is increasing in popularity. 92.19.182.15 (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• merge per Flyer22 rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Merge. It's essentially the same subject as gray asexuality, and normally discussed in articles about asexuality. Not enough reliable sources to make a good article on its own. KateWishing (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Merge. (Summoned by bot) The most substantial argument in favor of keeping it is that, the way it's being written about lately, demisexuality is distinct from gray asexuality, which is a really compelling point. If it were verified with reliable sources, this would be a different discussion. But since that hasn't happened, Flyer22's rationale for merging makes sense. CityOfSilver 15:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Merge Agree with several of the conclusions above. Strong sources support the merge, and if the significant increase in coverage can provide enough content to support it's own page, use the draft space to expand and properly cite the article. Comatmebro (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Soft Keep — The arguments for and against the merge are compelling, however as the topic of demisexuality is increasing in notability it may become notable enough to warrant its own article. Besides, I've never heard of Gray Asexuality before seeing this RfC. Don't help me, help the bear. 01:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Atsme, regarding this, should it be restored for the RfC? Or should the RfC go ahead and be withdrawn? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

My apologies Flyer22 - I didn't know an RfC was called. What I saw was your reverted edit. I will self-revert and let the RfC run its course. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric will you, and if not you, please ask another experienced closer to close the above survey? ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.