Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropophilia in animals


 * 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   no consensus. Note that the current article is much different than the article that was nominated, so renomination is possible if the new version is judged to be non-notable. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Anthropophilia in animals

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable. Unlikely ever to meet WP:N.


 * Delete. Non-notable.— James Cantor (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 *  Keep This seems to me like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination and there is a few sources out there through a simple search. Seasider91 (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can you name some of these alleged sources?  Google reveals 33 hits, not one of which is an RS.  (And why on Earth would I NOTLIKETHIS?  I am the author of very many articles among the paraphilias.)— James Cantor (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - a paragraph was added that was sourced to enotes.com. When you look at the reference, it is specifically a mirror of the WP article Zoophilia and the law, and therefore not a reliable source and not of use. Lady  of  Shalott  17:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is a known phenomenon. Ask anyone who breeds falconry birds. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't doubt you.  The question, however, is about whether its notability can be established in RS's.— James Cantor (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but expand. The primary meaning is a preference for humans, specifically among parasites. The sexual meaning is important but secondary. Anthropophilia is a well-known phenomenon with thousands of references. There has been a lot of research and analysis on why some parasites prefer humans over other animals. Nominator is a WP:SPA who works exclusively on promoting sexual concepts he supports and trying to reduce or remove those he does not support. We had a similar problem at androphilia and gynephilia. Jokestress (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That AfD was Articles for deletion/Androphilia and gynephilia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND is inappropriate.  Make your argument on its own merits...such as providing the RS's.  And you should probably spread your sudden and "unrelated" disagreements with me across more time, so as to avoid an appearance of hounding.— James Cantor (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 6,140 Google Scholar results for anthropophilia. Disruptive nomination. Jokestress (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not seeing notability. Article is close to being original research. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not original research. Many falconry bird breeders know very well about birds raised by humans being sexually inprinted on humans, and it is important in their breeding programs. It is well described in falconry books. It is also why the giant panda Chi-Chi refused to mate with An-An. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I moved all the stuff about sexual response to Imprinting (psychology). The article is now about the term as used in parasitology, with a link to wiktionary. Jokestress (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. That actually is/was a great idea.  That prevents it from being confused with a paraphilia.  I would, however, move it to just "anthropophilia", as the "in animals" is now redundant.— James Cantor (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2012 (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.