Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypofocus


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hypofocus

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

The article is OR; the term is not used by reputable sources, as the article itself admits. Looie496 (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'd been going to suggest merger into Attention Deficit Disorder, but I don't think there's enough verifiable material here to save. I have found the term in a single reliable source, this paper (which is reproduced in a book), but it's a single passing mention and does not elaborate on this as a specific condition: the usage suggests it's a generic term. Other Google hits are for usernames and imprecise references in blogs and discussions: since the subject isn't covered by reliable sources it fails notability criteria. Bits of the article (not to be confused with "hippofocus", an obsession with elephants? Characterized by a fascination with QVC?) smell hoaxy to me too. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: that the page was created with a bunch of maintenance and issue tags dated Jan 09 suggests to me that this may be a recreation of deleted material, but there is nothing in the deletion log for this title. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The fact the article states "The term hypofocus is not in common use among academics, and rarely appears in peer-reviewed articles. However, related terms such as "science" are widely used." suggests to me the author was perfectly aware of the rules, but trying to bend them with a bad argument. I can't see how science is a term related to hypofocus or how it would determine its notability if it was related since it can't be inherited by mere association. The connection needs to be a lot stronger before it is considered inheritable in our music and film guidelines for example- Mgm|(talk) 11:23, 16 December 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.