Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropomorphobia


 * 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Anthropomorphobia

 * Keep - as the grounds for deletion no longer apply.ANTIcarrot 12:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Article was originally proposed for deletion by unregistered ; the reason was "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources." - Mike Rosoft 17:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - completely unsourced, and a Google search gets under 2,000 hits - a lot of which are Wiki mirrors. I don't see any serious psychology references to it, or much of anything that could be considered a reliable source. I was going to suggest a merge, but it's already on -phob-; if someone comes up with a few good sources for this, I'd reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsupported neologism. No WP:RS - the single reference listed simply supports the fact that human-animal chimeric cells can be created, not that such a phobia exists. -- MarcoTolo 22:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tony & Marco. Carlossuarez46 01:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a popular vote. Please read the relevant guidelines on such discussions; only post if you have something new to say.ANTIcarrot 15:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the NY Times article just linked to on the article's talk page shows that inducing human characteristics in animals raises ethical issues that many people are uncomfortable with - anthropomorphobia, although without using the word. --CliffC 01:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism/OR. JJL 02:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 07:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia requires sources ONLY for disputed claims. The statement '2+2=4' for example does not require a source. What claims in this article are disputed? ANTIcarrot 14:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Everything has to be sourced.  Quoting from WP:V,  "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis the original).    Likewise at WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" (emphasis the original).  It's always been that way.  Heather 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy.WP:REFAnd I quote: attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. The emphasis is Wikipedia's, not mine. So as i said what in the article do you wish to dispute? And don't say 'everything' or I'll be equally vague and cite 'the entire internet' in return. Be specific please.ANTIcarrot 16:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What you are quoting refers to information within articles. The passages that I quoted above deal with articles themselves.  Every article needs sources; if it can't be verified, it doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion.  Heather 14:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And you are avoiding the question. I am happy to provide sources, but first I need to know what I am providing sources for. Evidence for the word itself? Evidence for the attitude? Evidence for specific sentences? WP:DP specifically states that lack of citation is cause for EDITING; for ADDING sources, SPECIFICALLY NOT deleting the article. So what do you want us to cite evidence for? It is a simple question. There is no point supplying sources for A, B & C, if you are going to turn around and complain that we failed to provide evidence for X - and hence the article should be deleted. So either answer the question or withdraw your objection. ANTIcarrot 19:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're also going to ask me and others to spend two hours looking through old magazines looking for evidence you can bloody well pull your finger out for two seconds to say what you want the evidence to be for.ANTIcarrot 20:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes - and you're completely wrong. [] is merely one of hundreds of pages that demonstrates that not all articles need sources. If you disbelieve me, put up a 'page doesn't cite sources' notice on *that* page and se how far you get before an administrator makes some choice and accurate observations about your understanding of the rules.ANTIcarrot 21:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as unsourced OR. Heather 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is stated specifically on WP:DP that lack of sources is a criteria for editing, not deletion.ANTIcarrot 17:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename and keep per suggestion at Talk:Anthropomorphobia. The concept is sourced, we just need a name that's not a neologism.  WP:DP states "Pages with an incorrect name can simply be renamed via page movement procedure".  Yes, I know I rang in once already, sorry.  --CliffC 22:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with furry fandom. --SakotGrimshine 08:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? It would be like merging anti-americanism with america. Just because the two titles have words in common doesn't mean they are even related.ANTIcarrot 14:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Completely unreferenced, no reliable sources, and has a faint hint of WP:SOAP to it.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Added references for fear, reluctance, and professional concern over possible distortion of scientific data. What else needs citation?ANTIcarrot 21:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You can source the article to death, but the problem is that none of the cited sources actually say anything about "Anthropomorphobia". What this article is doing is proposing a definition for an invented term and then finding sources that relate to the given definition.  This is what we call a novel synthesis.  Until and unless reliable sources that demonstrate this term is in use in the field of psychology, medicine, or some other meaningful way, it still fails inclusion criteria.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2007 (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.