Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redophilia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Redophilia

Neologism. --jpgordon{gab} 19:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Possibly something can be merged to somewhere?..— David Remahl 19:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Very ugly Neologism, you can't just stick an english word in front of -philia. Delete. --fvw* 19:58, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
  • Delete! Merge to BJAODN!!! --Idont Havaname 21:30, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep!. This is not a made up word or concept. I've heard it many times and even used it before. If anyone doubts this just enter the word into a search engine and you'll see. MacFergus 23:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--jpgordon{gab} 00:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: I didn't think it was funny enough for BJAODN, since it's mainly funny that someone is attempting to pass this off as true. Geogre 01:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Calton 03:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 04:46, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Antandrus 04:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Mm-hm... Try putting "redophile" into Yahoo! or Google. You'll get plenty of hits of webpages made by people who worship redheads and call themselves redophiles. What is sad is that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to teach people about things they have never heard of. That is of course, except for all of you people since you already know all that there is to know. So of course, if you've never heard of something then it must be made up or be some attempt at a joke. Good to see that the omniscient Jpgordon is off to a good start on his first day as an administrator. MacFergus 06:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Mm-hm... sixteen yahoo hits and 22 on google? Now, I'm the first to defend that all human knowledge is not on google, but really... 38? Random bad Usenet jokes from five years ago get more web citations than that. Citing that in support may not help you much. Shimgray 14:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Look, I didn't say the phenomenon was rampant. The article itself even calls it a "paraphilia" which beans it is not common. The argument I am making is that it is not a made up word and that it is a real thing, because that is the justification that has been given for deletion of the article. If you delete this article because only a minority of people subscribe to this condition then you'll have to delete all the articles on paraphilias and anything else that the majority doesn't partake in. The administrator and the peanut gallery need to drop their elitist attitudes if they want Wikipedia to be a true reflection of things that exist, regardless of whether or not they have heard of something before. MacFergus 20:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • You're missing a few points here. First of all, this isn't an administrative issue at all; anyone can put articles up for votes for deletion; the only special thing an administrator can do here is actually execute the deletion if and and only if a consensus has been reached, after the required 7-day listing period. Secondly, notability is the issue. With all of 3 hits for the actual term listed, and a scant 22 when listed under another form, it's simply not up to the notability standards. ("Peanut gallery"?) --jpgordon{gab} 00:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to redhead fetish (currently only a redirect to red hair, but certainly a term that nets more than a few Google hits), then delete the redirect at "redophilia". Weak keep if renamed. -Sean Curtin 23:43, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Zeus forbid that Wikipedia be a place where things gain their notability by providing a means for the curious to learn about it. Maybe later we can roast hotdogs over a bonfire of burning books full of things that aren't worth letting others read and learn about.
    • Well, I don't know about Zeus, but Wikipedia indeed is not a place for things to gain notability. --jpgordon{gab} 02:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Well then, let's just let people wallow in ignorance as they search Wikipedia for information that has been banned. Do what you need to do, Adolf. MacFergus 15:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Yank whatever you guys want to yank, but please at least be consistent! I am baffled why such things as acrotomophilia, gerontophilia, klismaphilia and maiesiophilia are all worthy of articles but the love of red-haired people is not. MacFergus 22:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • A friend pointed something out to me that has made me realize the futility of trying to talk to the brick walls that are these people who seem to have a negative say in every single article up for deletion. Seems that the competition is fierce for those coveted additional points in Wikipedia Extreme Article Deletion. Well, go at it boys... play the fiddle as Rome burns around you. MacFergus 21:38, 01 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, the term is sure to become more widely used. -- Crevaner 10:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Agree with Crevaner above. -- Old Right 11:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've never heard the term and I've met a number of men "into" redheads of one gender or another. If you're making up words at least use the proper Greek on both sides: purrophilia (Love of redheads) --Bastique 20:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • oooh, well then. You MET some guys who were into redheads, that makes you the uberexpert of the subject then. I guess if YOU have never heard of it then it's all made up. While I agree that purrophilia is probably more appropriate, the problem is no one uses that. The word redophile just started showing up on webpages and blogs that are devoted to the admiration of redheads. The beauty of the English language is its versatility and the ability it gives its speaker to add affixes to words to enable the speaker to better express themselves. Thousands of words in use today were "made up" at some point, but that doesn't make them invalid. I fail to understand the need so many of you people have to fight the continued growth of the language and the knowledge represented on Wikipedia. The bottom line is that this paraphilia really exists, and people use this word to describe it. that is why this word belongs in any repository of knowledge. Unless you want some site like Urban Dictionary to have more information than Wikipedia does. MacFergus 16:00, 03 Dec 2004 (UTC)