Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amaurophilia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amaurophilia

Amaurophilia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Another inadequately sourced paraphilia article; both sources look to be vulnerable to protologisms. No hits for this term on Google Scholar or Factiva, and only around 7,000 (~230 unique) on Google as a whole, so this does not appear to be a widely used term, but rather a thing made up in a paper one day. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete No sources for any of the statements made in the article. Beach drifter (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Personally, I think we should retain it for now, and find the sources, if possible. If there can be no other sources found, after a period of two or so weeks, then re-nominate it. Cougar Draven (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Three years not long enough, then? ;-) Guy (Help!) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The only published source seems to be the "Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices"; it's the only Google Books hit, and an academic search through my university library produces absolutely nothing. Online hits seem to largely be regurgitations of either our text or the EUSP's text. Unless better sources can be found, I'd consider this a term invented by the EUSP and not documented anywhere else; it does not appear to have found wide currency and thus I feel this article should be deleted. Re-creation should be allowed IF the re-creator finds better sources, but not otherwise. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.