Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coulrophilia (2nd nomination)

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coulrophilia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating this because WP:NEO and it's just a dictionary definition (WP:NOT#DICTIONARY). st170e^talk 22:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 22:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't just about a neologsm.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourced to a blog. No significant scientific coverage. — James Cantor (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it need to be "significant"? Apollo The Logician (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean only to be referring to WP:GNG.— James Cantor (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Really something that scares you to Google. These images may interfere with sleep tonight. If any place is ever going to piece together the sourcing for an actual public resource on this topic, it will be Wikipedia. I've added two sources. Surely there must be some literature on this topic? The word was invented somehow.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those non-expert cites uses the term at all. Nor does either one say that it constitutes at paraphilia (which is what the page claims). In fact, one of the cites says specifically that it is NOT on any official list.— James Cantor (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James, I really didn't expect this to be notable, and I just jogged around for a chuckle, but I keep finding additional sources, and adding them. Some additional articles that reference a "clown fetish" and don't use the term "coulrophilia" also show notability. I am interested to see how this discussion turns out.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More of same. The page continues to claim that this is a medical entity (a paraphilia), and all of the cites (none citing any medical literature) are merely musings of the (non-expert) authors.— James Cantor (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an issue for article improvement, not notability. Many notable things are noted by non-experts.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDRS applies and indicates a higher standard than that.— James Cantor (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If loving clowns is wrong, then I don't want to be right. :-) --Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Mark Griffths does Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NAD...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2016 (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.