Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phallophilia

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. Courcelles 00:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phallophilia[edit]

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

No sources; is this a neologism someone coined? Appears to be pure original research. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Found sources: [[1]], [[2]] - However, only the first source seems any way reliable, the second source is iffy at best. Dondegroovily (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-Notable Neologism... Carrite (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WrongDiagnosis.com site found by Dondegroovily does not strike me as reliable either. Their "About Us" page grandiosely self-describes the site as "one of the world’s leading providers of online medical health information", but does not reveal who is responsible for the content (professionals?) or otherwise why we should trust what they write. They appear to be a commercial enterprise, Health Grades Inc., sporting ads (see also here). And what they write under the heading "Common Misdiagnoses and Phallophilia" on their page Misdiagnosis of Phallophilia is ridiculous – it has nothing to do with phallophilia. They use the same text for Misdiagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease and Misdiagnosis of Vertigo, conditions whose symptoms are not similar to phallophilia. These texts are mostly boilerplate. Google scholar does not yield anything relevant. --Lambiam 22:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the "About Us" section on that site indicates HealthGrades compiled the information contained on this Website from a wide variety of sources ranging from reputable medical publications to non-authoritative websites of unclear ownership. Based on the second half of that disclaimer, I don't think it can be assumed to be all that reliable of a source. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  It's actually on their "Terms of Use" page, in the first term, entitled "No Reliance on Information", where the user is supposed to acknowledge and confirm that they will treat the information on the website as inherently unreliable. --Lambiam 16:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Human penis size per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While redirects are cheap, WP:R#PLA tells us that the page Phallophilia should only send the user to some target article if that article contains the term phallophilia, and for adding that term in an acceptable way to Human penis size we need a reliable source that gives some verifiable information about this supposed paraphilia. --Lambiam 16:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of great sources here. I don't think we have a winner of an article, but certainly enough for one section. Bearian (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This word/topic has never been the topic of serious study among sexologists. There exist a great many atypical sexual interests, and any writer can attach "-philia" to that interest as a short-hand way of referring to it. There is no problem in that, of course, but it doesn't make each such term notable.— James Cantor (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2010 (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.