Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androphobia (3rd 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Androphobia
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are two uses of "androphobia" out there:
 * 1) the psychological condition of an abnormal fear of men (a phobia);
 * 2) a term used to mean misandry (either a neologism or malapropism).

The current article offers only a WP:DICDEF which distinguishes the two terms.

But there's a bigger problem than DICDEF: There are not sufficient sources about #1 that meet our standards for psychological articles (WP:MEDRS). I can't find sufficient evidence it's even recognized as a real condition. There are indeed lots of google hits for the word, but close inspection shows that the overwhelming majority of them use it in the #2 sense and, again, those that don't are not reliable.

Even if someone were to argue that MEDRS doesn't apply to the GNG (and I'm not sure it doesn't), passing the GNG would be meaningless if there aren't enough reliable sources we can use to create a viable encyclopedia article.

My inclination was to boldly redirect this to misandry because of popular usage, but as was pointed out in the merge discussion at Talk:Misandry a while back, the terms should not be conflated in this way. The only other possible target I could think of was List of phobias but the inclusion criteria for that list looks to require a Wikipedia article. The only solution seems to be delete. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 06:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 06:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 06:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 06:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - utterly unsourced neologism. At best, it's a WP:DICDEF and doesn't belong here - A l is o n  ❤ 18:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Doesn't "Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary" and perhaps "MedicineNet.com" qualify as a reliable source? --Pip25 (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the most basic level, I would agree that Taber's is a reliable source. In this case, however, the entirety of the entry in Taber's for this is "Morbid fear of men." Although I don't have prior experience with MedicineNet.com, it certainly does not look reliable. That's not to say there isn't reliable content on the site, but that the entry for Androphobia is a cookie cutter database entry. It takes two etymologies, puts them together, and provides a standard definition that appears to be the exact same language as every other -phobia: "An abnormal and persistent fear of ____. Sufferers experience anxiety even though they may realize they face no real threat." Those phobias that are better known/documented have more information. This does not. On top of that, two definitions does not an encyclopedia make. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Good thinking Rhododendrites. BakerStMD T&#124;C 23:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I turned up one article titled "Andro-phobia", but the styling suggests an intentional neologism and the article is a media criticism/queer studies piece, not really about the phobia. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2015 (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.