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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attraction to fictional characters[edit]

Attraction to fictional characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The main lede is sourced to someone's random Wordpress blog. The article is a large collection of WP:SYNTH from varying sources that say different things, put together by the author to make a claim.

Claims attraction to fictional characters is a "paraphilia" - which doesn't make much sense in my opinion - fails to distinguish between finding fictional characters attractive and believing them to be real people, which are two very different things. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: To be honest, I was concerned that this may run foul of WP:SYNTH or WP:NEO(initial article name was Fictosexuality). There are only two sources in my first draft, Yule et al. and the Griffiths's blog Yule cited, and then the rest was synthesized to the stub. I agree that paraphilia is not an appropriate definition, but I found no other reliable definitions.

  Sorry to say, it was too soon to make an article. Even if this article meets WP:NOTE, it's difficult to go together the two policies above. It would rather far easier to improve Nijikon, though outcome will still implicate less than what fictosexuality could mean. --LT sfm (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: I add that Toonophilia (There is evidence of deletion in 2005) is formerly redirected to Other specified paraphilic disorder. I think it's more appropriate to be redirected to Nijikon. --LT sfm (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that "toonophilia" should exist as a redirect seeing as the target article(s) don't actually discuss it at all. It will just result in the searcher not finding what they're looking for, and a Google search doesn't turn up any reliable sources. Seems to be just as much of a neologism now as it was in 2005. "Attraction to fictional characters" is far too vague to ever redirect to Nijikon, which is attraction to anime characters in particular._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nijikon was redirected to glossary of anime and manga by ZXCVBNM the day before this AFD was opened, so I reverted that. This could be added to the discussion though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The "someone" is Professor Mark Griffiths, for reference, who is not really random. Yes, it is a bad idea to title this as another neologistic -philia word. For why see Mikulak 1998, p. 251 which mentions the fluid meanings of "animatophilia", "toonophilia", and "furryphilia" and cites Langer 1993 which coined "animatophile" non-sexually.

  Mikulak 1998, p. 202 also discusses how the disagreement over the sexualization of cartoon characters in cartoon fandom split a Usenet newsgroup (alt.tv.tiny-toon). Sexualized cartoon characters were also part of the mob-distributed Tijuana Bibles of the 1930s (Kerekes 1995, p. 4). The sexualization of cartoon characters really does not fit as yet another rubbish -philia (c.f. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climacophilia and, indeed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toonophilia) and we already have the likes of furry fandom#Sexual aspects.

  Uncle G (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mikulak, Bill (1998). "Who owns Looney Tunes?". In Sandler, Kevin S. (ed.). Reading the Rabbit: Explorations in Warner Bros. Animation. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 9780813525389.
  • Langer, Mark (June 1993). "Animatophilia, Cultural Production, and Corporate Interests: The Case of 'Ren & Stimpy'". Film History. 5 (1): 127–141.
  • Kerekes, David (1995). "Thrill to stories of graphic lust!". In Kerekes, David; Slater, David (eds.). Critical Vision: Random Essays & Tracts Concerning Sex, Religion, Death. Headpress. ISBN 9780952328803.
• Delete If you are attracted to real people, you can be attracted to a picture or animated version of them, this isn't a disorder or anything that needs to be named. If they are drawn to have more desirable characteristics than a normal person would most likely have, then people would naturally be attracted to them. Dream Focus 15:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for your reference list, Uncle G. On theorizing otaku sexuality or sexualization of characters, there is some literature in Japan, such as by Tamaki Saitō and Hiroki Azuma (See also Moe (slang)). But it should be careful to use them since their theses are particular to Japan's social context.

  I removed and fixed problematic paragraphs. I admit some more problems in my writing, but assume it's still a noteworthy topic. Since identified by many writers, you can't say the attraction shouldn't be named or documented only as it's common to many people. The difficulty is absence of an inclusive term, but Mikulak 1998 can be a glue for cluttered slangs instead of Griffiths 2012. Composition of Attraction to transgender people (former Transsensual) seems a good example. If discussion expanded based on Mikulak is called WP:SYNTH, then it can't be helped. (The title seems important. The present article name is most inclusive and neutral, while Toonophilia has some accademic refferences.) --LT sfm (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Paraphilia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spy-cicle (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Attraction to fictional characters" is a far too vague title to be considered a paraphilia. That could describe anyone with a crush on a TV or movie character, which is fairly common and not at all unusual._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vague. Fictional characters could include live-action characters, celebrities, Idols. Attraction is also vague. It could be general and non-sexual, like Fandom. The article should have been left in draft due to being an essay (see WP:NOTESSAY) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I do not believe an attraction to a fictional character should be automatically classified as a disorder so I very much disagree with the redirect proposal to paraphilia. I agree with everything that AngusWOOF wrote, and with the nominator's rationale. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "Fictional characters" is too broad here per the above comments. On a side note.... there were (and still are) lots of fans of David Bowie's role as the "goblin king" from the movie Labyrinth. Are we expected to believe that this is a type of sexual paraphilia? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If we can find a proper source, this should Redirect to List of paraphilias under the term "Fictophila", as the concept seems to be in RS discussion but without any name attached. But if we can't, then Delete. --Masem (t) 16:47, 21 September 2019 (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.