This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject TikTok, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of TikTok on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TikTokWikipedia:WikiProject TikTokTemplate:WikiProject TikTokTikTok articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Body Modification, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Body ModificationWikipedia:WikiProject Body ModificationTemplate:WikiProject Body ModificationBody Modification articles
Not done: I doubt many people take the whole sigma male stuff seriously, and certainly not enough to justify using this name for the whole incel subculture. Especially without reliable sources connecting the term to looksmaxxing in particular. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 05:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I would like to see this article revised or even deleted. It currently reads like Urban Dictionary. I checked the address bar to make sure I wasn't on a Wikipedia parody website. I have read the entire article and talk section. Unless I am missing something, this article was made by group of friends to celebrate inside jokes and/or poke fun at each other. A sincere encyclopedia is not the place to do that. Haiku.Kireji (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
As silly as the topic is, it has been covered by reliable sources such as the BBC, The New York Times, The Daily Dot and The Guardian. The article definitely needs improvement and cleaning out the less reliable sources used, but well-covered neologisms and other recent concepts definitely have their place here, if sourced correctly. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply