Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human-oriented sexualism: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Zuzz22 (talk | contribs)
Line 13: Line 13:
:Since this is an article about discrimination, it is not neutral to assume it is “hijacking LGBT rhetoric,” despite multiple academic studies available.
: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. [[User:Zuzz22|Zuzz22]] ([[User talk:Zuzz22|talk]]) 09:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Zuzz22|Zuzz22]] ([[User talk:Zuzz22|talk]]) 09:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
::this is your second edit, the first being [[special:diff/1219861922|this fascinating edit to the article]]... [[user:ltbdl|ltb]][[user:ltbdl/d|<span style="color:orange">d</span>]][[user:ltbdl|l]] ([[user talk:ltbdl|talk]]) 11:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:59, 26 April 2024

Human-oriented sexualism

Human-oriented sexualism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

COATRACK for fictosexuality, which is already itself a fringe topic with the article existing mainly as a massive advocacy page. 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]

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... ltbdl (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]