Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gynandromorphophilia (2nd nomination)


 * 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   defer pending the outcome of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. J04n(talk page) 14:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Gynandromorphophilia
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

POV–FRINGE-fork of Attraction to transgender people, written in such a way that it appears benign. This article was brought up by me at Administrators' noticeboard/HebephiliaIncident into scrutiny of User:James Cantor's contributions, and I defer to 's analysis:

"James created Gynandromorphophilia in August 2012. We already had an article on that subject at, first, Transfan, then Attraction to transgender people, so Gynandromorphophilia is arguably a POV fork. According to MOSMED, we are supposed to use "the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources." I searched for this term on PubMed, and at that time found only two examples: a paper by the inventor of the term, Ray Blanchard, a close colleague of James at CAMH, and one other from Hungary. I asked James at the AfD for other examples of its use, but there was no response. The article was kept, but it seems to be a clear example of editing to promote a little-used term (and the perspective associated with it), with the result that Wikipedia is causing the spread of it, rather than merely (or also) reflecting that spread."

From looking at the article, this analysis seems to check out. The giveaway sentence to me is in the lead section, "Gynandromorphophilia and autogynephilia have been noted to be important considerations in the assessment of Gender Identity Disorder.": autogynephilia is only really important for its inclusion as part of Ray Blanchard's controversial fringe theory of transgender typology.

I do also notice that the primary contributor, Cantor, is a colleague of Blanchard at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and a noted advocate of Blanchard's typology. On the balance of this, I would assume that it was a FRINGE article created by someone with a similar FRINGE conflict of interest outside his normal line of work on sexology. Sceptre (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fringe or not, it has Google Scholar hits. Is there a reason why this shouldn't be merged to Attraction to transgender people or vice-versa? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Defer: There is currently a pending request for arbitration, which looks likely to be accepted, related to this topic and its major contributors - WP:A/R/C. I would strongly recommend deferring this nomination until the outcome of this case. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's wise to argue keep an article on the basis of (by design) non-article-space bureaucracy. I'd be very surprised if we've ever had a non-admin arbitrator, and in the case of them all being admins, as I'm assuming, they can access the article history under any circumstance from this AFD. Sceptre (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not recommending the article be kept, nor that it be deleted (I haven't formulated an opinion either way). I am merely recommending that the discussion is postponed until the relevant "non-article-space bureaucracy" as you put it is out of the way so that neither discussion prejudices the other. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy close per Thryduulf, this is unnecessary and a bad idea considering the circumstances. And in any case, the rationale makes a case for merging or redirecting but not for deletion. - filelake shoe &#xF0F6;  18:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, or merge back. POV forking is not an approved way of resolving content disputes. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge the content into Attraction to transgender people, and retain the title as a redirect. Attraction to transgender people was created in 2005 (under a different title). Gynandromorphophilia was created in 2009 as a redirect to one of the previous titles of Attraction to transgender people, then as a separate article in 2012, though it covers the same issue. PubMed has only two entries for the term, one from 1993 written by the person who I believe coined it, Ray Blanchard. There are 26 entries on Google Books, including this one, so material about the use of the term can be added to Attraction to transgender people, but there's nothing to suggest that two articles about this issue are needed. If someone believes that Attraction to transgender people should be called Gynandromorphophilia, the way to do that is with a requested-move discussion, not by creating a fork. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Defer. If the argument for naming the topic is to be based on its use by scholarly sources I can only find one academic source that employs the term "Attraction to transgender people" . I'd also note that there are significant concerns with the use of the gynandromorphophilia literature in the "Attraction" article, documented on its talk page, which raise the possibility of synthesis and original research. Besides which, it would be better to await the outcome of the arbcom case, as several editors above have already observed, as the outcome could possibly impact across a range of articles in this general field. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and possibly salt, This is the tip of the iceberg. Insomesia (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2013 (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.