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 Keep, article has been improved during AFD and is now more than just a definition. Davewild (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pediophobia[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary already has a definition. ukexpat (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wiktionary has a definition. And wikipedia doesn't have an encyclopedia entry. Did you read the discussion page of the article you just nominated for deletion? I created it about an hour ago, and plan to expand it beyond the current definition, stub template, reference, and 'See also' section (which alone make it a more complete article already than in its previous incarnation, and than other stub articles that have just been created). Give it some time please. Eleven even (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is not even a day old. We should give it time to develop. Hazillow (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-if you want to expand this article, please place a ((underconstruction)) tag.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 01:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, yeah. Underconstruction completely slipped my mind. Thanks. Eleven even (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A merge with the article on dolls seems like a natural starting point to me. I don't think it's going to be the sort of subject that gets long enough to deserve an article on its own, and if that happens, the section can always be split off into its own article. Sockatume (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just because something is a new stub is not a deletion reason. Appears ample scholarly material online to make an encyclopediac article of what is a commonish term for a wierd afflication - Peripitus (Talk) 02:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fear of children, which is where pedophobia redirects to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pedophobia is the fear of children. Pediophobia is the fear of dolls (or other inanimate simulacra of sentient beings) and/or of children. They aren't the same. Eleven even (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe, but that isn't currently what the article says: "Pediophobia is a fear of dolls, or a fear of children" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure I see what you mean to say. What isn't currently what the article says? To me it looks like you're quoting the article as saying what I said, but saying it doesn't say that. ????. Is it the part about sentient beings that makes the difference? The only thing I've included so far is what was explicitly in the cited definition; I'm not going to add to that until after I've digested the source material. Or is there something else I'm missing about what you're saying? Eleven even (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm going to be eventualist for a change and say that an article is possible if it brings in material from, for example, the paintings of Balthus, the uses in literature (e.g. E.T.A. Hoffmann), etc. It's a pretty common feature of the uncanny. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Balthus is borderline: the only reason I'm contending that pediophobia deserves to be its own article is that it specifically relates to children, as opposed to youth. Many of Balthus' subjects are what I would call children, but on the whole I would call his theme youth. Just barely. And that's totally subjective. And kind of beside the point, because whatever I or you think about Balthus' intent, if some reputable person or group hasn't published some reputable paper in a reputable journal or whatnot, it's not getting in the article. Can you think of sources for any of that? Aside from the last part; it is a pretty common and fairly well-documented feature of the uncanny, I think sources will be sufficiently abundant on that point. Eleven even (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Andrew Lenahan.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this is a classic case of why I strongly dislike the underconstruction template. Articles should meet basic Wikipedia standards before being saved into the mainspace, otherwise they should be eligible for deletion.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pediophobia (fear of dolls or children) is not the same as pedophobia (fear of children), so the utility of redirecting this page to Fear of children is questionable. On the one hand, "pediophobia" may be considered a likely misspelling of "pedophobia"; technically, however, the two concepts are distinct and we should avoid giving the impression that they are equivalent. In my opinion, a better target for a redirect and/or merge would be Doll. That said, the article is currently mostly a dicdef and a LexisNexis search didn't turn up adequate material for a quick expansion. Perhaps, if the creator is willing, we could userfy the article to a subpage of his/her user page, with the option of moving it back to the mainspace if/when it is expanded? Incidentally, the subject of pediophobia may have some relationship to the Uncanny valley hypothesis (see this). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just finished including Mori's theory in the article. Eleven even (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mean his Uncanny valley hypothesis. Eleven even (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I have taken this as a lesson: if I want to create any other stubs that are that stubby (and sparse of source material) I will definitely userfy them first. Eleven even (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the addition of the paper by Pujals and Buffington as a source has changed my mind. The source itself does not, in my view, prove the notability of the subject (it seems to be an unpublished paper); however, it makes me think that keeping or merging are preferable to deletion. Since merging does not require AfD, I think it's better to keep, allow an opportunity for the article to be expanded, and (if it is not expanded) to revisit the issue of merging at some point in the future. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added two additional sources. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:04, 2 March 2008 (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.