Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamrosophilia


 * 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   Hammered. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hamrosophilia

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Clearly a hoax, declined as speedy under G3, word does not exist beyond user generated content. No mention of refs in my 2 books concerning sexual paraphilia either:- I referenced against "Sexual Deviance (2nd edition): Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (D. Richard Laws PhD and William T. O'Donohue PhD) and "Gender Disorders and the Paraphilias (William B. Arndt)"  Fish Barking?  18:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Whack it with a hammer (that is, delete). It's never a good sign when an article is referenced to Urban Dictionary.  I'm not sure I'd call this as a hoax, per se; it's plausible that the activity could occur within the more extreme subcultures of the BDSM community.  But the word, describing hammer play in the language of paraphilias, is clearly a neologism with absolutely no traction in anything remotely resembling reliable sources.  And even if that weren't the case, this stubby thing is literally a dictionary definition, complete with its purported derivation.  Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:SPEEDY AFD. It is annoying that it is soooo easy to get an article into WP and reeeealy hard to get rid of them. Makes it hard for the declining number of editors. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The honest truth is, if you feel overworked, take a break. Getting new content into Wikipedia is getting continuously harder, getting rid of content is getting continuously easier, and that's why the number of editors is declining. Making it easier to delete things (and harder to get involved in the first place) just exacerbates the problem. Wily D  07:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, WilyD, you're wrong. CSD was put here for just this kind of thing, something you didn't agree with.  That now means instead of being able to bin this crap is anywhere between 5 minutes and an hour, it's now going to take a week.  The article took a few minutes to assemble and file, and it's now going to take 7 whole days to shift because an admin wasn't in the same frame of mind as the person who tagged the article. Nice one, WilyD.  Fish  Barking?  10:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, CSD was established to save time deleting articles that had no hope of being retained. This article is plausibly better turned into a redirect than straightly deleted.  Or even plausibly expanded with references to establish notability (I really don't know enough about the subject area to know where to find references, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if someone can dig them up.)  CSD criteria are narrow for a reason, and G3 only applies to blatant or obvious hoaxes, something this article has no resemblance to whatsoever.  I'm sorry if that upsets you, but it is what it is.  Wily D  13:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And really, if you wanted to delete it with a minimum of effort, why'd you remove the PROD tag I added? Wily D 13:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That would still take a week, WilyD. I was hoping that enough people would realise that this was a piece of shit with no hope of salvageability, and an AFD would conclude with a snow close, and we could get this crap out of the way as should have happened in the first place.   Fish  Barking?  14:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So it would take a week. So what?  That gives people time to salvage the article (which may be possible), or find a suitable redirect target (which is usually better than deletion).  And if neither occurs; no harm has passed, it's all good. If one or the other does occur, all the better.  Wily D  14:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There's probably a sensible redirect target for this somewhere. I don't know enough about BDSM to know what it is, though. Wily D  07:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not a notable topic, as those handy links above to different searches plainly show. I oppose a redirect on the ground that no other wikipedia article mentions the topic, so there is currently no valid target that would explain anything about hamrosophilia.  It's not obvious that any other article should mention the topic, either, so merging is ruled out. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - For all of the above. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:47, 24 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.