Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enochlophobia


 * 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 - Altenmann >t 14:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Enochlophobia

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No such medical term. Heck, there is even no such Greeek or Latin word 'enochlos' or 'enochlon' to derive from. Looks like some ignoramus coined it. It is amazing how it not only infested the 'net, but even books!. Xuz (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep That it "infested the 'net" and "books" is basically a hint that it has notability :). That is has no proper derivation from Greek and Latin is entirely irrelevant, as is your argument that there is "no such medical term." GNews has a substantial amount of reliable sourcing to offer, much of which confers notability, as does GScholar. I might argue that the article should make reference to the term's dubious origins, if that is the case, but the term is clearly notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  09:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence here of reliable sources. It's being presented as a medical term, but apart from a blog link on the article, we have no evidence from any online or print sources that this is actually used medically.  Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A quick GNews and GBooks search returns a plethora of coverage from multiple reliable sources (there are books devoted to phobias that cover this phobia, and newspapers like the Miami Herald talk about it, too...I'm just plucking random examples). As for whether or not it is presented properly as a "medical term," I do not have an opinion. But that's a matter of adjusting the content in the article and has nothing to do with a reason to delete this article. There is not only "evidence" of reliable sourcing, there is a bona fide mountain of it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  23:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * comment Wouldn't this be covered under agoraphobia? Perhaps the article should be incorporated there? TreacherousWays (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think they're quite the same. One is a fear of large spaces, the other is a fear of large crowds. I personally find endless phobia-creep a bit silly but they have distinct definitions and my notability argument is above. Also, if there is some concern that "enochlophobia" is not an actual medical condition and that's a problem (I have no opinion on this), I think redirecting or merging to agorabphobia, which I believe is a legitimate condition, would be problematic. Just my two cents. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  23:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Ah, yes. I misread "fear of public places". As an uninvolved, uninformed layman, perhaps my views should be taken with a grain of salt, but if this is a legitimate phobia then won't psychologists be treating it and (more importantly from our standpoint) writing about it in reliable sources? Is this a neologism to be avoided? TreacherousWays (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment On the contrary, I think being an "uninvolved, uninformed layman" makes your views very important. I am pretty much completely uninformed on the topic as well, although I've managed to involve myself now, hehe. The neologism point is interesting. GNews coverage doesn't turn up much of anything on this term prior to 2003. However, coverage is steady starting in 2003, just based on the mention rate graph they supply. In my opinion, it clears being a neologism -- it doesn't seem like a "fad word," if you will. My opinion is that just because the word "phobia" is in the title doesn't mean it has to have reliable sourcing from psychologists, nor does it have to be about a medical term. I don't think a fear of something has to be a medical term before it can have a "phobia" attached to it. Does that make any sense? My overall point here is that the lack of reliable sourcing from medical professionals seems irrelevant, to me. There is notability-conferring sourcing available, and much of it goes deeper than simply defining the term. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to define and promote new disorders which have not been discussed scholarly. I got no hits in pubmed.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2010 (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.