Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arachnophilia

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 of the debate was Delete. --D e ath phoenix 00:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arachnophilia

Claims to be a paraphilia, and yet: 103 hits for arachnaphilia and paraphila together, no quotations. A lot of these seem to have referenced this wiki article. No hits on google scholar (the term arachnophilia by itself seems to be some kind of internet formatting program, zero hits associated with arachnophilia and paraphilia), no hits on a search of American Psychological Association article search with or without the term paraphilia, No relevant hits on lexis nexis (although one about nonsexual poems about liking spiders). The 100 google hits suggest that this is a role playing sex term that is in very low currency- how many role playing sex terms get so few hits on google? Compare with 409 hits for microphilia paraphilia together. Lotusduck 01:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was written entirely by 218.174.180.152 (talk · contribs), also editing as 218.167.177.106 (talk · contribs). No sources, likely hoax, definitely nn rubbish. Ashibaka tock 01:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless seriously verified. Arachnophilia is also relatively known freeware HTML editor [1]. Since WP serves almost as Freshmeat twin it may be covered. Pavel Vozenilek 01:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified -- Astrokey44|talk 09:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is deleted then Arachnophilia (HTML editor) should be moved to this article. No vote. JIP | Talk 13:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wonder if I would have been out of line in making arachnophilia a redirect instead of deletion. I'm not clear if that's a sneaky deletion or utterly appropriate. Hmm. I'm the nominator

The way I understand it, if there is an article titled Article title (some meaning), then the article Article title should either be a proper article about something other called "Article title" or a disambig page between various things called "Article title", and not a redirect to Article title (some meaning). Redirects the other way around are OK. JIP | Talk 16:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like all the rest. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely hoax. --Fire Star 01:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, needs verification. incog 02:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And let me know if there are any Praying-mantis-roleplay women out there, I want to avoid them. Seriously, looks pretty much like either a hoax or non-notable. Herostratus 19:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.