Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phallophobia


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Phallophobia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

not generally recognized  DGG ( talk ) 10:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * delete the sources listed are highly unlikely to support this term. Legacypac (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep A simple Google search turns up 11,000 hits. This seems to be a known phobia based on my search. Seasider91 (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * see WP:GHITS. Could you share some of the specific high quality sources that show this meets WP:NEO? (or WP:GNG)? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  sst ✈  13:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 14:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - If it's actually a phobia, we should be using WP:MEDRS sources and the current article would qualify for WP:TNT (the first source is "Hip Hop Cooking"?). But I have a feeling we're just talking about one of the many words that include the suffix "-phobia" that people coin to invent clickbait (or pre-Internet ~clickbait) and/or make a point. Most of the sources I'm seeing are just homophobes and antifeminists talking about how they don't like penises (or how certain women don't like penises). There are some others, but this looks like a WP:NEO fail to me. At best, what we have is a WP:DICDEF. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG. Just fails in general. J bh  Talk  15:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I am finding at least mentions in academic sources (although I don't think much of psychoanalysis or any subject starting with meta) the following sources are behind a paywall but may be of interest:, and . Combined with the huge number of mentions in less academic sources, I would say the concept is notable (per GNG). I don't think we can conclude that the mainstream scientific community thinks it is real, but it does seem to have taken off. It seems to be listed in some popular phobia listings. Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Would need to be at least in DSM V, and the search fails there. I actually think this may be a hoax, given the sources. LaMona (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, i have gone through various search engine results and a significant proportion of returns are sitting behind a pay wall. This sort of scenario gives me the impression that a multifaceted editor could quite conceivably improve the article if he/she has access. Min al Khadr (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was shocked at the number of books using this term. Also, searches need to be done for Ithyphallophobia and medorthophobia. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of phobias. It's included in Encyclopedia of Phobias, Fears, and Anxieties, but barely; other mentions (Balbert Corbett Boubia) are passing and trivial, and do not imply there's any reliable content beyond the definition. e.g., Boubia's only mention is
 * and that's a typical amount of detail. FourViolas (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete fails the GNG. All mentions so far are trivial and/or passing --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  20:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - the phobia is rare but legit it seems from the sources I can find. More research needs to be done. But deleting it is not the answer.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. If more research is to be done, it's not ready for primetime. A redirect, as suggested by one editor, may be valid. I agree with the analysis of sources (weak). Drmies (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I did find a mention of the term itself in this book, but it wasn't used in the way it was here. It was instead used in reference to masculinity as a whole. I don't know if this was one of the paywalled sources (this came up via my school's catalog), but I figured that I'd mention this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete these sources look totally bogus. Curro2 (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly an important concept - even if better sources should be found. OlavN (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is lacking in articles of this nature. The recent frequency of headlines surrounding fear merely complements that thesis. Furthermore, a quick glance at search returns indicate its peered with established terms thus hinting at notability. Coupled with its coequal entries which seem to have articles and the fact that there is a capacity for adding up coordinate terms, hypernyms and academic work that doesn't necessarily use the term all suggest its encyclopedic nature and that there is significant capacity for sourcing and referencing the article. I found the delete rationales unconvincing since it is not necessarily a subset of psychology and some of the delete votes were made prior to the imrpovement of the article. Geezaspeel (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Phobia is very real for those afflicted. Wikipedia article is well cited.  Term is in wide use, as evidenced by multitude of google search hits.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.8.188 (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2016 (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.