Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enochlophobia (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   keep.  Sandstein  06:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Enochlophobia
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This was nominated and deleted in March as a neologism. Just today, it was restored without the problems being fixed, but I believe that the restoring admin did it because the previous nomination was tainted — the nominator was a sock of the deleting admin; see this ArbCom finding for a further explanation. Since the content hasn't changed, I renominate this under the same grounds as it was originally nominated: "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!" Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Neologism (perhaps Enoch is Hebrew?) Lectonar (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 *  Redirect  The term is real, as is ochlophobia (from Greek ὄχλος) which is in Wiktionary. As this is an obscure term for which medical literature is scant, redirect it to an appropriate phobia, probably agoraphobia.Novangelis (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Voting keep on the same grounds as I did in the initial AfD. That the term has "infested the 'net" and "even books" is pretty clearly, to me, grounds for inclusion, not grounds for deletion. If it's a neologism, it appears to be a pretty sticky one. I support the deletion of neologisms in obvious cases where the term is either brand new and/or popped up on the web for a brief period a few years ago and then fell away. This does not appear to be the case with this term. "No such medical term" seems almost like an I don't like it type of argument. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article presents enochlophobia as an actual phobia: the article is about the alleged concept, not the word. Medical sources are reliable sources for medical issues, but pop culture articles aren't reliable for medical issues.  Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair point, but that seems much more grounds for changing the article than deleting it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  20:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. The etymology is obviously from Greek ἐν (en) "in" + ὄχλος (ochlos) "crowd" + φόβος (phobos) "panic" + the suffix -ία (-ia) meaning "condition"; together: a condition of panic when in a crowd. --Lambiam 19:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I remember, the problem with all these phobia articles is that spammers like to use fake phobia terms (or indeed any vaguely technical-sounding-but-fake term) to direct traffic around the internet. Thus you have to distinguish carefully between genuine conditions, and ones invented by spammers who know how to construct an etymologically-sound faux-phobia. And you have to be 100% certain that the sources you are using are reliable and referring to the condition, not to the word, and most certainly avoid using sources that have themselves been fooled in this fashion. Carcharoth (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Social anxiety, which seems to cover the topic adequately. The term is mentioned in several popular psychology related guides available at Google Books, however, I don't consider the literature trustworthy; none of the sources show evidence that the term is used in the field of medicine. On the other hand, it doesn't look like an obvious fake term and people could serch for help and explanation here. Using a redirect seems to be the most sensible outcome. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Contrary to what is stated in the present article, I think this quite common anxiety disorder (in severe cases even a panic disorder) is not a social anxiety disorder, but instead a form or variant of claustrophobia – a disorder in which anxiety attacks are triggered by different situations for individual sufferers, but share as a common factor the feeling that there may be no way out – also classified by some as agoraphobia. So redirecting to Social anxiety may not be the solution. A more common name for the specific form that is triggered by finding oneself "crowded in" is crowd anxiety, which may be a better name for the article if it is kept (although, unfortunately, that term is also used colloquially for performance anxiety, which is a form of social anxiety). --Lambiam 13:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Without trying to go through the whole problem classification with overlaps, "anxiety disorder" is imprecise but accurate. I could easily support that as a redirect. The purpose of any redirect we might implement is to help people navigate Wikipedia. In the absence of a clear target, outright deletion as neologism is a supportable position. As an article, this completely fails to establish notability and verifiability. There were no hits on PubMed for enochlophobia and one for ochlophobia (in the English abstract of a French language article). There is no such medical entity warranting an article. There are enough uses on the web, none to any major sites, to consider helping someone looking up the term. The problem is that "crowd" can refer to both the mass of people (agoraphobia) and the people within it (social anxiety). Since we would be defining a medically undefined entity, the blanket term, "anxiety disorder", is probably best.Novangelis (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Anxiety disorder as a redirect target is sufficiently imprecise to be accurate, but if we redirect there, the term enochlophobia must be mentioned on the target page (see WP:R), and if it is mentioned, it should also be defined there in some way. We should then, perhaps, point out that this term has no currency in the professional field, and that its meaning ("fear of crowds") is therefore not well defined and can in fact relate to different phobias. --Lambiam 23:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have known better. It may be that the dual meaning of crowd will create an ambiguity that necessitates deletion. It might be too much detail for an overview article to have an obscure term and a neologism. Thanks for the reminder.Novangelis (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per not a neologism. Being "obscure" to the layman is not cause for deletion of an artcle on a real term that has been in real use in real sources for many years... in news and books. That it might take work to improve that article is not a cause for deletion of a subject when so much sourcing is available.  What is required is the surmountable issue of expansion, cleanup, and sourcing... but not a deletion. -- Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * However, this is not a real phobia. Is it really a good idea to have an article on a word simply because it's used when the article itself could cause confusion?  Notability and copyright issues are not the only valid reasons to delete articles.  Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Sorry.  Sources show it is indeed a real, accepted, and defined phobia. Your assertion that it is not seems to be unfounded, while my own opinion is founded in multiple reliable sources: Abnormal Psychology classifies it as a psychoneorotic disorder.  Phobias revealed and explained lists it as among known phobias. CSO Magazine and An Excess of Phobias and Manias share that it is term for fear of crowds. The Aldrich Dictionary of Phobias and Other Word Families defines the word on page 232.  Phobias: everything you wanted to know, but were afraid to ask relates it to claustrophobia. A lexicon of lunacy: metaphoric malady, moral responsibility, and psychiatry defines it. Handbook of psychological terms defines it. Perspectives on environment and behavior: theory, research, and applications describes it in historical depth. It is covered in Taber's cyclopedic medical dictionary, Science Illustrated, A practical medical dictionary, Newswatch, The Penguin dictionary of psychology, Psychiatric Nursing Made Incredibly Easy!, etc, etc, etc.   And those are just a few of the books.  The topic has also been covered in multiple news articles since as far back as 1930.  While it's possible that some non-rs publications may have used the term, their usage is not reflected back on the many proper RS that have written of it.  Notability meriting inclusion in Wikipedia seems a slam dunk.  If you find a blatant copyvio of an unattributed sentence, either remove it or correct it.... but concerns with style and tone of an article covering a sourcable and notable topic are best treated through regular editing... not deletion because it might take some work. -- Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I initially advocated for its deletion but references provided have swayed me that this is notable enough for an encyclopedic article. Hopefully someone will take the time to reference the reliable sources, such as the book sources.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep changed from redirect and with reservations. I still suspect that this will die as nothing but a definition. By the sources offered to justify its inclusion, it was an outdated term in 1977. Another offers two definitions, the other being "fear of vehicles". I have serious doubts that there will be sources to establish the historical significance, beyond conflicting dictionary definitions, but I'll give it a fair chance. As the term ochlophobia has more and older support, the article probably should be ochlophobia and enochlophobia should be the redirect.Novangelis (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: seems to have enough to go beyond dictionary land.--Milowent (talk) 04:06, 8 May 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.