Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autoandrophilia

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 redirect to Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology#Autogynephilia_and_autoandrophilia. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Autoandrophilia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-admitted fringe theory created by someone with an admitted CoI: "the concept has received much less attention than autogynephilia, its counterpart." Given that autogynephilia itself is a fringe theory and not supported by WPATH (doi:10.1080/15532739.2011.606195), I don't think this warrants an article either. See also: andromimetophilia, gynemimetophilia, both redirects; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gynandromorphophilia (3rd nomination). Sceptre ^(talk) 20:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search engine hits suggest this term may be notable:

194 results on Google books
10,400 results on Google Web search
15,800 results on Bing (but no results on Jstor or Google News)

The article mentions several meanings of the term—does the nominator assert that all of them are fringe?

Blanchard's transsexualism typology has a section about this term; this article could perhaps be merged to that one. —rybec 00:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is anything worth merging, although a redirect may be prudent in any case. The theory only comes up in relation to Blanchard's typology, which enjoys little support outside a clique of sexologists. WPATH, which is the recognised authority on transgender healthcare, reached a consensus that there is no evidence for autogynephilia/autoandrophilia to justify its inclusion in the DSM-V (see AfD), and Moser (doi:10.1080/00918369.2010.486241, et ) has found that the theory as proposed is incredibly flawed. As to the Google Books results: most of the results are either critical of the concept or only mention it as part of the list, and compared to "gender dysphoria" and "gender identity disorder", it is numerically dwarfed. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology#Autogynephilia_and_autoandrophilia. Curiously, it has more text and context on the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

(1) The consensus at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard is that this is not fringe.

(2) Rybec's search above indicates this is not fringe.

(3) Autoandrophilia is not part of Blanchard's autogynephilia theory. (The autoandrophilia page contains no cites to Blanchard, and none of Blanchard's works on autgynephilia contains autoandrophilia.)

(4) Staszek appears to have misread the pages a bit: The autoandrophilia page includes 10 RS's about autoandrophilia, almost all high end, peer-reviewed research journals, whereas Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology#Autogynephilia_and_autoandrophilia contains two sources: a dead link, and a caption in a CBS photo essay.

(5) Regarding Sceptre's accusations of me inappropriately editing under a COI, the recently closed ArbCom case (WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology) indicates the opposite of Sceptre's claims, as other non-involved editors have tried to point out to her.[1]

Sceptre is certainly entitled to disagree with ArbCom's findings, such as here, but she is not free to disregard them and to engage in the behaviours that ArbCom just ruled against.

— James Cantor (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus either way, although little evidence has been brought up to refute the evidence I've provided that it is a fringe theory.
This is a glorified WP:GHITS argument. Searching Murray "Bell Curve" brings up 48,000 results on Google Books and 214,000 on Google proper, but that doesn't that the Bell Curve theory is valid (because it's not).
Nice try, but Blanchard has equated autoandrophilia as the male equivalent of autogynephilia, most notably in his proposed changes to the DSM 5 (opposed by WPATH) as of October 2010. Although that statement also creates an argument as towards the unscientificness of the theory.
Source one rejects the theory. Source two is a glorified Cracked list. Sources 3 and 5 discuss it in relation to the DSM 5. Source 4 and 8 are written by known advocates of the theory (one of them redirects to Blanchard's transsexualism typology; the other is, of course, the infamous author of The Man Who Would Be Queen) Source 7, published pre-DSM 5 draft, says that it's only a "logical extension" of autogynephilia. Source 9 is part of WPATH's papers on the DSM 5 changes, and opposes addition due to lack of evidence. Source 10 also opposes it, but from a different angle. ~~I cannot access source 6, but I guess it either mentions it in passing or is in opposition~~ Edit: Source 6 mentions it in passing only; either it fails WP:FRINGE or WP:N.
That ArbCom didn't vote on the issue doesn't mean you don't have a COI or aren't editing inappropriately. In 2009, you undertook the pledge on your user page not to edit in areas relating to transsexuality due to concerns you may be COI editing inappopriately; is there any reason why it is no longer valid?

Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 03:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-redundant bits of contents could go to Blanchard's and this encyclopedia would be better off. Aside from this, I regret that the loud parties here don't declare CoIs.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology#Autogynephilia_and_autoandrophilia, as per Autogynephilia. Bringing the content into a single article should help avoid Content Forks and Fringe Theories. That's not to dismiss the content in autoandrophilia, much of it could be moved across. 1292simon (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There are clearly some issues here, as noted above. But what this comes down to is that the target article has a much more detailed treatment of the subject, and I think it would be better to focus on that than on splitting the article. Targetting the redirect to the specific section helps as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and keep content per 1292simon. — Scott • talk 10:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.