Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gynophagia

: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The result was Keep as redirect, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure RoninBK T C 19:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

=[[Gynophagia]]=

:{{la|Gynophagia}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Gynophagia}})

Considering the meager results of a Google Book search, [http://www.google.com/search?q=Gynophagia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=Gynophagia&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wp&fp=fc8aae4abccfd483 here], I can only conclude that this is not much of a word. The OED concurs. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. I was going to speedy this one straight away but sadly a Google search confirms this is not a hoax. However the article is completely insufficient and the topic is well covered at Vorarephilia already. Can we pile on and WP:SNOW this quickly? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I was tagged on this AFD because, years ago, I apparently moved the article from Gynophagia to the "gender-neutral" Vorarephilia. It is on AFD because, in the last day, someone has created an article there without references, links, or proper writing. This should be speedily closed and simply reset back to my edit of 2007, redirecting to vorarephilia. --Golbez (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

:*That's good to know, didn't look closely enough at the edit history. I have removed today's material and restored the redirect - I know it doesn't work because of the AfD tag but I felt it was worth it to get rid of that text until this AfD is closed. I didn't feel I could close it myself as I feel too strongly about the material. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

  • To any passing admin: I concur with the arguments above, but since I nominated it and it hasn't run very long I don't want to close it. Please do as you see fit: the redirect is perfectly fine with me. Thanks, and thanks to the editors who weighed in, Drmies (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: Golbez's note made me realize that the 'real' creator had not been properly notified, though they should be aware of this AfD--they edited the article after I nominated it. I left a note on their talk page, if only for form's sake. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

: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.