Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androphilia and gynephilia
That's a weird article history:  Two-thirds of it has been repeatedly http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Androphilia_and_gynephilia&diff=440382702&oldid=440372538 removed on BLP grounds, and repeatedly restored, with the (claimed) BLP problems basically being brushed aside.  Doubtless the restoration is a strategically useful response to the threat of deletion, because, in practice, AFD almost never deletes articles that names a couple of dozen sources, even if the sources don't say anything significant—or even at all—about the subject (so few editors bother to find out what the sources actually say), but it might be worth looking at both of the versions.I have not formed an opinion on what we should do with this page; it will require spending some time with the sources, to see how much of this might be a string of tiny, passing mentions or sources substantiating tangential points vs the significant, in-depth, independent, secondary sources that GNG requires.  As a general point, however, I'd like to call the existence of roposed mergers to the attention of the nom:  Merge-and-redirect discussions do not need to take place at AFD
— User:WhatamIdoing, 18:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:P (Wikipedia:Portal)