Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chlorophilia


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-14 02:47Z 

Chlorophilia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

del original research around a nonnotable neologism `'mikka 08:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. A similar article was deleted a while back: Articles for deletion/Dendrofilia (sexology). Zetawoof(&zeta;) 10:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Couldn't find anything, neither clinically, nor otherwise notable, apart from wikimirrors. If plants (and not just "green") are to be the object, a better word would be phytophilia anyway - which exists, but has nothing to do with sexual attraction . Dendrophilia is still listed in the article on paraphilia, by the way, and appears as a blue link to a dab page. Of course I'll change my opinion, as soon as notable sources are presented. I couldn't find any.---Sluzzelin 11:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't mention sexual attraction. I was distracted by the paraphilia article. But my vote doesn't change. Maybe phytophila does have more potential - I found academic references for phytophilia, still using a different meaning then the article's though. As a quality reflected in the positive influence of green environments on human behaviour. Here's one academic mentioning (though it's just an abstract of a paper): ---Sluzzelin 11:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Even here it is an occasional neologism without real content. `'mikka 17:37, 8 February 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.