Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korephilia

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. Sandstein 20:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Korephilia

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

See arguments made at Talk:Korephilia. The topic is not WP:Notable and it is WP:Fringe. It uses sources that define pedophilia incorrectly (for example, making it seem like the disorder is about pederasty, with one source stating "it is usually understood to mean homosexual fixation on young boys"), and sources that are outdated. We have appropriate articles for the things this article discuses. The article also includes WP:Synthesis. It was created by Froggzz5 (talk · contribs), who was blocked by Alison as a sock of Laatmedaar (talk · contribs), after I brought the matter to Alison's attention because of the obvious socking by the account. Laatmedaar has been involved in cases concerning a number of questionable articles that are currently at AfD. Although Alison did not identify the sockmaster as the person I suspected it of being, the person I suspected it of being has sent me emails (including with throwaway accounts) in the past about how he can continue to thrive on Wikipedia; one way is to get people to post his articles for him. This article looks very much like an article that the sockmaster would have written, and I usually have no trouble identifying that sockmaster. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I alerted WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete I got that it is an archaic term at best. I'm not sure if FRINGE applies since it is more of just a term that was merged in more modern language. I think it fails more generally under WP:MEDRS but the backstory confuses the issue in single article nominations. I almost said keep because AfD is not article cleanup and most of the points raised are related to cleanup.--Savonneux (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Savonneux, thanks for weighing in. I'm aware that WP:AfD is not cleanup. If I felt that this was a cleanup matter, I would not have nominated the article for deletion. Well, not unless the WP:G5 matter had been validated. You stated that "it is an archaic term at best" and "it is more of just a term that was merged in more modern language," but I'm barely seeing any scholarly sources truly discussing the term and it's not noted in any of the solid literature on pedophilia. The article states that it's like a female form of pederasty, but also states "Korephilia generally has much fewer frequencies of occurrences than other forms of pedophilia." I understand that article is stating that korephilia can be defined in different ways, but pederasty and pedophilia are not the same thing. Furthermore, female pedophiles (as separate from female child molesters) are very rare, which is one reason the term korephilia probably never caught on. The occurrence of female child molesters is also significantly lower than the occurrence of male child molesters. Either way, we have the Pedophilia article, Child sexual abuse article and similar articles to deal with these topics. We don't need this article, which confuses medical literature as it is used today and is a WP:NEO violation. And by "WP:NEO violation," I mean that this is an isolated term that is nowhere close to being mainstream. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: Roger, just wanted some clarification. Changing to delete.--Savonneux (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to pedophilia Could have been speedied per WP:A10 but this way is more solid. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe redirect to pedophilia, but I'm not even sure. I haven't been able to find reliable sources on the topic in my own search. There are 3 hits on google scholar and only one of them uses the word. The others use parts of the word separately. Then 6 hits on google books, none that seem like authorities on the topic and the few sources that use the term just define it (with varying definitions) and none give in depth coverage on that specific term. —PermStrump(talk) 04:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to wiktionary:Korephilia: I am not seeing much if any evidence that this is a concept that would make a good encyclopedia article - no useful information anywhere never mind sources that satisfy WP:MEDRS or WP:GNG. It'd be only useful in a dictionary, and that is what Wiktionary is for per WP:NOTDICTIONARY.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirection. Pedophilia is a widely known physiological disorder, while this is not considered as such. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outdated term, poor sourcing. Remove or redirect to pedophilia.Legitimus (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Others have already explained the details pretty well. Reliable sources just don't seem to use this term to warrant its own article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I contested the original PROD because it looked to be well sourced enough to merit discussion. After reviewing the rationale and discussion, I think it should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm finding the arguments for delete troubling. There is no dispute the term exists, the fringe argument is ridiculous, the alleged sockpuppet argument is not valid for here, the arguments that the article's content is contradictory based on contradictions between sources is not an argument for delete - sources rarely all say the same thing and articles can express various viewpoints as long as they are sourced. There are questions about the inadequacy in content, for example the source defining the term is a book on Greek sculpture, it would be expected to define and talk about kore but in what context is it talking about korephilia and why is none of that content in the article (or is there actually no content and the book just defines "kore" and nothing more)? Since the term exists, surely a brief stub containing a see also link would be sufficient, rather than a delete. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield, exactly how are the fringe arguments ridiculous? As for "sources rarely all say the same thing," they usually define a topic the same way. For example, medical authorities on pedophilia are pretty consistent when it comes to what pedophilia is. Criteria differences is another matter. When there are a few sources that don't define a topic like most other sources do, it is a WP:Due weight matter. There is absolutely no reason at all to keep this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term does not define something that is fringe, that is why I said the fringe argument is ridiculous. I think it would be a misapplication of what fringe is for Wikipedia to apply it to the popularity of the term. Also, an article's subject is defined according to what sources say about it, so there is no necessity for sources to be uniform in their opinions in order for an article on that topic to exist on Wikipedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield, Permstrump summed up the matter quite well in a few words. The topic is fringe because "an erotic attraction of a woman toward a prepubescent girl that is called korephilia" is fringe, and so is "a female equivalent to pederasty." If someone can show that "a female equivalent to pederasty" is WP:Notable, then I would change my mind about deleting this article. The article would still need cleanup, per my earlier comments (calling the matter pederasty and then pedophilia is confusing, and the sources themselves confuse what pedophilia is; no experts on pedophilia define it as "usually understood to mean homosexual fixation on young boys"), but it would at least be worth keeping. Also, per WP:Due weight, how most sources define pedophilia matters and the mainstream view should be clear even in articles that take a different view of the term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing about "a female equivalent to pederasty" is that scholars usually state that there was no female equivalent in ancient times. So as far as the ancient aspect goes, "a female equivalent to pederasty" is quite fringe. This 2006 Sex from Plato to Paglia: A-L source, from Greenwood Publishing Group, page 122, for example, states, "No female equivalent to classical pederasty existed, as far as we know, and if biblical justifications for condemning male homoeroticism are difficult to pin down in meaning, biblical justifications for condemning female homoeroticism are even sketchier (Miller)." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The concept that examples exist of "an erotic attraction of a woman toward a prepubescent girl" is not a fringe concept - so I am arguing that a term for a concept that is not fringe cannot be called "fringe". A claim like "No female equivalent to classical pederasty existed" sounds about as dogmatically extreme as the viewpoint the article mentions when saying "the concept of a woman-girl relationship is sometimes negated by societies that dismiss the existence of an autonomous female sexual identity". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield, we'll have to agree to disagree about how the WP:Fringe guideline applies in this case then. As for "an erotic attraction of a woman toward a prepubescent girl", while one can argue that the concept is not fringe, one can also argue that the matter is fringe when examining the literature on sexual attraction of adults toward prepubescent children or specifically the literature under the term pedophilia. Do have a look and see the number of scholarly sources on Google Books that make it explicitly clear that "pedophilia is almost exclusively a male disorder" or that "paraphilias are rarely found in women." Also see "no female equivalent to pederasty." It is not a dogmatic matter; it's a matter based on what scholar after scholar has stated. And fringe authors who depart from that mainstream view had better provide a convincing argument as to why the mainstream view/mainstream research is wrong. I see none of that in this article, or in reliable sources not used in this article. I'm not sure how you think pederasty is defined, but I repeat that it is not the same thing as pedophilia (which is about a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, not to mid or late teenagers), and it (pederasty) is mostly defined by the social ways of boys and men in ancient times. There is no documentation that there was such a setup between girls and women. Pedophilia also is not the same thing as child sexual abuse, which is commonly committed by non-pedophiles, can include cases of a teenager with an adult, and cases involving child-on-child sexual abuse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That explanation cleared up some things about questions I didn't even know I had. Thanks! —PermStrump(talk) 04:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The actual subject is not of interest to me. What I was concerned with is what I see as an abuse of the concept of Fringe. WP:FRINGE explains that it applies to theories, subjects, opinions, ideas, etc. It does not apply to a term (even if it is a little used term, or an archaic or obsolete one, or one that is an alternative to a better known one) that names something which is not fringe. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors, including the OP, have referenced multiple policies other than fringe as reasons why this article should be deleted. —PermStrump(talk) 20:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the discussions I've seen on Wikipedia about fringe terms, which may encompass "theories, subjects, opinions, ideas, etc.", I'll just state that I agree to disagree with Tiptoethrutheminefield. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:34, 27 August 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.