Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathodysmorphia


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Pathodysmorphia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The only sources anywhere for this newly coined term are in a primary source paper published by the author of the term, SJBrooks User:DrSamanthaBrooks who created the article-- not an independent source-- and one other primary source that mentions the word. DrSamanthaBrooks acknowledges on article talk there are no other sources and appeals for the article to be kept so her students can read it about it to plan their experiments, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Delete, notability not met. Only one independent source anywhere uses the word, and no WP:MEDRS-compliant source does.  The original paper published by the author of this article is not an independent source.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Sandy Georgia, can this article be reinstated when there are more references about this concept (independently of mine?) Samantha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.153.205 (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - okay, first, SandyGeorgia you nominated the article for deletion for your support for deleting the article is assumed. There's no need to also !vote. Samantha, you are free to leave Sandy a note on her talk page but this is a discussion open to the whole Wikipedia editing community so you'll find people other than Sandy will also contribute here. On the article itself - the subject is pure original research and we would need a lot more for this to be considered notable. Until then, it fails WP:NOT and WP:NOTBLOG if the want to keep it here is based on a desire to disseminate information to students. Wikipedia doesn't exist for use as a web-hosting service for new ideas or things someone invented one day. We're a long, long, long way from reliable coverage in multiple reliable sources. Stalwart 111  11:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , I don't often come this way, so would you mind popping over to my talk page with further info and let me know where I can find the instruction you reference (that it is assumed that my "vote" is delete)? What I find in the instructions is that possible outcomes at AFD include Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article, so I thought I had to specify where I stood.  I don't think we have a merge or redirect target, and I don't know if we can transwiki to Wiktionary, as all we have at this point is a definition from one non-independent source, and I don't know the policies at Wiktionary.  So I opined "Delete".  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to! Stalwart 111  22:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per discussion at Talk:Pathodysmorphia, this is new academic research reported in one primary and one secondary publication. This seems like a fairly clear case of 'too soon' (notwithstanding WP:Too soon's focus on pop culture topics). This may well become a notable concept in psychiatry and related fields, but until that time it belongs in the professional literature, not on Wikipedia. Cnilep (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2013 (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.