Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teliophilia

Teliophilia

Neologism, invented word, POV, propaganda piece for NAMBLA. --jpgordon 16:25, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Certainly not a useable article in its present form, and does seem to be a neologism. You think the most common philia in the world would get more than two Google hits. Lord Bob 16:36, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
• This is embarassing since I'm the guy who nominated this as a wiktionary transfer without Googling it first. Speedy delete if possible and appropriate. - Lucky 6.9 16:57, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.— Frecklefoot | Talk 17:49, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, pro-child-rape POV. — Gwalla | Talk 17:51, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete POV rubbish. Votes for deletion or retention really should have at least one reason for the vote appended to them (at least an agreement with similar votes which do have a reason appended) to count towards a consensus. With such a foul article as this, I hate to see any delete vote not counted. Fire Star 19:58, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Do not Delete. Every reason to delete shown here is wrong. You cannot prove them right. It is definitely not pro-child-rape, nor is it NAMBLA propoganda. Those are purely stupid ideas. True, it is not a common term, but it is an accurate one. And do not try to label me for not sharing your POVs. They are limited POVs that should not be taken reasonably on the world-wide web. I do not add my sources(there are too many), I request you prove yours. Anonymous (I dont have anywhere for you to contact me)
  • ...you choose not to prove the existance of the term because there are 'too many' references, while simulataneous calling upon us to prove that a term doesn't exist. I'm no linguist, but I don't think it's possible to prove that a term doesn't exist in language. You realize that you don't need to list every single occurance of a word to get it into Wikipedia...a few mainstream pieces would satisfy me. Lord Bob 22:25, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • ultimately... I can't prove the existence of this particular term... but I have heard it used a lot, and therefore mabye we just have the wrong term here. There is a scientific term for people attracted to adults, just as for any other attraction(even though attraction to adults is one of the most common attractions). I do, however, object to the reasons here to delete this word. If it should be deleted, it is because it's not commonly used, not because of this ridiculous propaganda theory, or the equally ridiculous association of the term to child rape. I asked the people who addedtheir reasons here to prove their ridiculous reasons to delete. Anonymous

We don't have to. Wikipedia, for better or ill, is run by consensus (and a guy named Jimbo). Unsigned, anonymous votes don't usually get counted in the decision process. Personally, I objected to the POV of the article, finding it both unencyclopaedic and pretty disgusting. I don't have to prove anything, I just have to vote and list my reasons, subjective as they may be. If enough of my fellow editors agree with me, the article in question will be deleted or merged or redirected. If not, it stays, as simple as that. The term itself exists and there is a redirect to the stubby article listed under the correct spelling of the word now, but I felt (if only for your personal edification) that your filibusters should not go unanswered. Fire Star 03:42, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Talk 17:51, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) While there is not too many articles of reference on google, the fact that the word is used seems to indicate it does have a proper meaning, and therefore the attempt at "neologising" this word seems to be just an attempt to stifle freedom of speech. Granted, the information given on the page is slightly emotive, but surely it would be better to edit the page to include the description, rather than deleting it from the site entirely.

• "Not too many articles of reference"? 2 cites on the net, perhaps from the same guy ("Ahoy Dave" on one discussion board, "Boston Dave" on another.) Perhaps it might be helpful for the anonymous advocate of inclusion of this word to provide some more information demonstrating that this indeed is a word in actual use. jpgordon 22:57, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Comment It is a misspelling of teleiophilia, which gets 95 Google hits. Not in AHD4. Not in Merriam-Webster online. Most respectable-looking citation among the Google hits seems to be http://www.apa.org/divisions/div44/vol18nu3.htm which is part of the American Psychological Association website, and is part of a newsletter for APA division 44, the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual issues. It uses the term and cites "Blanchard, R., Barbaree, H. E., Bogaert, A. F., Dickey, R., Klassen, P., Kuban, M. E., & Zucker, K. J. (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463–478." I'm not quite prepared to vote yet. The current article seems to me to be hopelessly POV and to have little real information in it. I read it as an attempt to equate adult-to-adult sexual attraction and adult-to-child sexual attraction by characterizing them both as "-philias." If you remove the POV and correct the spelling, you have a dicdef. So you can certainly see which way I'm leaning. Not a common word but probably not a neologism, might be deletable for other reasons. Conceivably could be fixed. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:35, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In answer to a question from jpgordon, I found the right spelling by Googling on the exact phrase "attraction to adults" (which, astonishingly, gives less than a hundred hits). More Googling confirms that Greek root "teleios" means "perfect," by the way, which makes me wonder whether "teleiophilia" ought to mean "normal attraction" rather than "attraction to adults." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:58, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Duh! We already have an article (a stub) on Teleiophilia! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:08, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) And my vote is...

• Redirect to Teleiophilia. (And put that article on my watchlist to make sure it stays neutral). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:12, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Probably delete because Teleiophilia (thanks for finding it) is a dicdef that probably should be moved to Wiktionary. I'd support a redirect, though, if anyone can make the case that the article at the correct spelling has the possibility of expansion. Rossami 03:55, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • (Shrug) No very strong feelings. I would make a weak case that the article at the correct spelling has a possibility of expansion... or that the definition should be merged into Kurt Freund and Teleiophilia should redirect to Kurt Freund. The weak case is: now that I've discovered the word, I'm curious to know more about it, particularly what Kurt Freund intended it to mean and what mainstream psychologists think about it, and that seems to me to be worth a paragraph or two. However, since I don't plan to take responsibility for writing that paragraph, it's irresponsible of me to argue for leaving the stub in place. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:11, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Kill, kill it now. Ambi 05:20, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• DELETE, interestingly, the article does not describe teleiophilia, it describes normal sexual interest of adults plus ephebophilia. 132.205.15.4 07:55, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)