Deletion of Androphilia and gynephilia

Comment: I worked on this article in it's beginning when it was a stub and in a much worse state than it is now. The issue is obviously well sourced and discussed by notable people in the field of human sexuality. If something as small as LiveJasmin is deemed notable enough to deserve having it's own article, I don't see why this discussion in the field of psychology/sexuality/linguistics which whole books have been written ofhttp://www.amazon.com/Androphilia-Rejecting-Identity-Reclaiming-Masculinity/dp/0976403587 should be deleted. Speedy keep because the nomination appears to be mostly an editing dispute, and also because the proposer wants the information moved rather than deleted and no one else so far wants the article deleted. James Cantor, please resolve your dispute over this article and don't propose the deletion of a valid wikipedia topic just to make a point (
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: I've gotten through a good number of the sources, though not all.  Nearly all are  sources, often used to say little more than "____ used this word on this date" or "____ used this word in this slightly different way" or even merely the tangential point that "____ doesn't like the old terms".  Even some of the sources that we'd normally say are secondary sources are being used merely as primary sources here (e.g., the Freund paper is used to support a statement about who developed a scale in which year, rather than to support a statement about the concepts).  Some of the sources don't even mention the word, or barely do more than mention it.  Bagemihl, my chief disappointment in this regard, doesn't mention any variant of either the word at all.  He talks about the problems with the older terms (that he objects to these older terms is all the source is trying to support)—but he never manages to even mention these.  Bagemihl therefore provides zero evidence of the newer terms' notability.  Jordan-Young's ''Brain Storm'' is the only reliable source that I could unreservedly label a proper secondary source that actually addresses the subject directly.The GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary sources.  ''Brain Storm'' seems to be the only source that meets this standard, and it cannot be said to be "multiple" sources.  I believe therefore that the best course of action is a , without prejudice against ting later, when/if more secondary sources become available in the future
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY||WP:MERGE||WP:SPLIT)