Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictiophilia

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fictiophilia

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

Non-notable neologism, sourced to a blog and... I don't even know what the second reference is supposed to be. A handful of hits on Google, of which none are reliable sources. Prod removed by article creator. Kolbasz (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then what's it called? Huh? It happens a lot and this is the official term, the problem is that it's very common then people think it's normal so It not that of a concern. As for the references, I'm not good at HTML. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hades173 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Hades173 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Kolbasz (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia is based on what is, not what we think should be. It's an encyclopedia based on what reliable sources say about notable subjects. If this is the "official term" for the concept, then the article needs reliable sources that say so! As far as I can tell, the term was made up by the cited blog (not a reliable source), isn't in widespread use and doesn't show up in the scientific literature at all. Kolbasz (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find reliable sources. The blog cited in the article notes that this is what the author calls fictiophilia: i.e. the term does not exist in other sources. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence that this has receive significant coverage in reliable sources. It looks like this might have caught on at Urban Dictionary and a few blogs, but that's about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was actually considering CSD'ing this when I saw it come across my NPP feed, however, I got sidetracked. For all I can tell this is either original research or a hoax - either way, it's not notable or sourced. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everyone above has said it as well or better than I could.I am One of Many (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2014 (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.