Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipediphile

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Carried out at 07:38, 7 Jan 2005 by User:Wile E. Heresiarch

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikipediphile

Never more than a dictdef. Duplicate of Wikipedia:Wikipediholic Sortior 03:49, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete A little too close to pediphile for my taste. DCEdwards1966 03:55, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • According to old dict i presently have at hand, a pediphile would have to be something along the lines of a foot fetishist, as pedi- does not apply to children as pedo- sometimes does. But this term does indeed confusingly evoke pedophile (which my old dict is too old to admit is a word worth listing; 1930 Second International for those interested). --Jerzy(t) 06:53, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
• Delete. But DCE should examine words like psychrophile, thermophile etc. --ZayZayEM 06:27, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Del. Confusing, unneeded, unestablished term. --Jerzy(t) 06:53, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
• delete but paedophile has an a in it. Dunc|☺ 12:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If you are lucky. Smoddy | Talk 23:50, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • And pedophile does not. By 1957, pedophilia made it into the 2nd Intl, the largest dictionary documenting English as spoken by the vast majority of its first-language speakers, and neither paedophile nor paedophilia was recognized even as a variation or an obscure word at the bottom of the page.

  Speaking intuitively, though, such an appeal for the Mother Tongue contributes to the gut level impression that America's former masters are still hoping to add the first English edition of Kraft-Ebbing to their monumental pornography collections, trying to square the luminiferous aether with the Michelson-Morley experiment, and probably practicing droit du seigneur. You blokes might find it worth lightening up. --Jerzy(t) 18:19, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

• Delete dicdef. Rje 13:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a trivial construction. Wyss 22:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.