Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Botanophobia


 * 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 sources could have helped but none were produced in 2+ weeks. W.marsh 19:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Botanophobia
del nonnotable coinage. Original research. No reliable references: blogs, chats and various "phobia lists" that flood internet. `'mikkanarxi 22:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Krakatoa  Katie  08:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems to be as real as many internet items - there are web pages dedicated to this, such as and professionals willing to be paid to cure us when we get this unfortunate condition.  Does need clean up, and perhaps expert attention.Obina 09:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep/Move While I agree with Obina, I also think that the article either needs to be more in depth and cite sources or it should get moved to wiktionary. -bobby 16:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Since there are no reliable sources, it cannot be otherwise. Jakew 16:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Agree with Robertbcole. If the article is not in depth, better to move it to Wiktionary. Cheers -- Imo  eng  21:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * delete If it is a real psychological condition, it would warrant coverage in medical journals. That people talk about it in blogs or forums does not a notable subject make. --Jayron32 05:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seems like a fabrication to me. Must agree that if it were a real disorder it would be in the medical journals. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 18:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - If I heard that term and did not know what it meant, the first thing i would do is wikipedia it. The point is, I believe it adds value to wikipedia and therefore it should stay.  Chris Kreider 15:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * reply Why make a statement that would be a better DELETE defense than a KEEP defense. If wikipedia is the FIRST place you would find information on this word than it is original research (hint, click those little blue words to the left to learn more) and thus is instantly and iminently deletable.  Anyone can make up a word and just dump it on wikipedia so others can "find out" what it means.  That does not make it encyclopedia worthy.  PRIOR EXISTANCE in reliable sources (hint, click those blue words too!) is a requirement for any article to exist on Wikipedia. --Jayron32 18:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Jakew; no sources, no article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:53, 30 October 2006 (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.