Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androphobia (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Split right down the middle, both numerically and qualitatively. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Androphobia
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nothing beyond dictionary definition: No evidence that such clinical phobia exists or notable. Mukadderat (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. If anywhere, this belongs on Wiktionary, where it already exists. No existent, or possible, content beyond a dicdef; thus, it fails WP:NOTDICDEF. This is a term whose usage depends on the points of view of those who use it, as the Google searches show. Deor (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. And since there are reliable sources giving significant coverage on the topic, like this one and this one, it is notable per the notability guideline. It also returns 44,200 Google search results, compared to the 25,600 for Gynophobia and 1,830 for Physalaemus centralis. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The references given in article are either dictionaries or antiphobia snake-oil peddlers who will sell you a cure for prostitute phobia for only $1,499 (See List of phobias). Of course, there may be clinical cases of pathological fear of men: specific phobias can be caused by any trigger, even by socks or toothpicks. But not all them are notable, even if some doctor in 1916 used this term for a woman who was suffering from vaginismus. - Altenmann >t 14:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to pass WP:GNG with nontrivial reliable resources. The article was deleted last year with the consensus that the term was a neologism.  The references in the article as of right now and a quick search on the subject, however, seem to support that the topic can be expanded and is notable.  I don't see how one could argue that there is no possible content beyond a dicdef.  There seems to be enough coverage of other phobias.  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 05:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  —Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep it could very easily be developed into a better article.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 04:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - this meets WP:N. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * keep - Some of the references are exceedingly dubious--some are an indiscriminate list of all conceivable phobia made up, apparently, by imagination with the help of  a greek dictionary. Once that happens, all the web site copy from each other, and any number of ghits http://www.yourdictionary.com/medical/androphobia matter unless they are examined ,. Looking at the first 50, there seems one adequate one" the American Heritage English dictionary lists it  and so does the quite authoritative Stedmans     DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: It seems likely that there ought to be an article here but this isn't it. But the question isn't can it be improved, but will it be improved. I don't think the article hasn't been around long enough to tell yet; maybe a cleanup tag should be added to see if it attracts any interest, then go ahead with the delete if nothing happens.--RDBury (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence this is a real concept in any reliable sources; at best this is a big WP:OR violation. csloat (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The references do not show it is really a specific phobia. An arbitrary rant by a Nick Scott of unknown expertise is hardly a medical reference. Anyone can write something like this about, e.g., keyboard-phobia, which can make life of an American really miserable in the modern world full of keyboads. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no evidence showing that this term is notable in the context provided. Wikipedia isn't a Greek dictionary.  Them  From  Space  03:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.