Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homeovestism


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Homeovestism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Two-year-old article that still lacks an assertion of notability. —Emufarmers(T/C) 18:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Pretty well sourced in peer-reviewed journals. Topic could use expansion, but it appears notability is shown by references. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 19:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This notion seems to have been a hobby horse of one researcher 30 to 40 years ago, then briefly mentioned in a foot-note in a work which was not peer-reviewed.  It might be a clever insight; but it isn't “notable”. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 10:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am retreating to agnosticism on this issue, in light of the evidence noted by Itub. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete All the sources are primary ones from the terms inventor. No proof that this term or concept ever caught on, so it is a non-notable old neologism (just a logism then?). If sources don't exist after 40 years, it seems certain that the psychological community did not embrace this term, and that it is a failed neologism.Yobmod (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. 44 google scholar hits, not all from the same author. The term did attract some notice from third parties. Another option would be to merge into a larger topic and redirect. --Itub (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Self-published sources cannot prove the notability of a subject. Erik the Red  2    03:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak Delete per WP:NOTE, but this article has growth potential and might be notable in a few months. Striked, did anyone check the citations?  The sources are from 1967, 1971, 1972, and 1977.  This fails WP:Notability, and this article has only 12 times more search hits than homovestism (which isn't even a word) and many are simply mirroring this article.  I say its pretty clear delete, the scholar hits were convincing, until one considers we're talking about spanning 40 years. Sentriclecub (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:Age is a very poor determination factor for notability. We'vegot articles on small towns that haven't existed for the past 400 years, nevermind 40. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 00:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Age is different than notability rate. If all the citations were compact to just a few years, lets say all the research happened between 1966 and 1976 and then none since, that is fine, but we're talking about a flat distribution.  Plus, I like to view the citations before I vote, and this one requires membership.  When I don't have the information, I have to err on the side of skepticism.  I'll change my vote if you can add another source or two, and I'll return to review them.  Thanks Sentriclecub (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, seems to have quite a bit of citations and would pass WP:GNG. Stifle (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2008 (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.