Talk:Spornosexual

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 June 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Mark Simpson (journalist).

Gender studies

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Should this article even exist?

Are we going to make an article for every single term that a journalist or public figure comes up with? That would be absurd. The result of a 2014 discussion was to merge this article into the Mark Simpson article. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is valid to create a new article if it significantly differs to the one at AfD. This article has many independent reliable sources from over an extended period of time, making it valid to stand as an independent article. This article also contains more info than the Mark Simpson article has. I dispute that "Much of the info appears to be dubious and non-notable" because all claims are sourced to independent reliable sources. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should non-words even be used?

Despite the best efforts of media and PR outlets, this term never made it into common usage. Given this, why does Wikipedia continue to devote time and effort into highlighting this dreadful expression? Could it be that the likes of Mark Simpson believe it possible to fool all of the people, all of the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.103.46 (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]