Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rupophobia


 * 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 Redirect to Mysophobia. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Rupophobia

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable definition, inaccurate original research. Suggest deletion or perhaps redirection to existing wiktionary article. 7 01:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - why not reference and tidy up? Opbeith (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete could not find sources independent of WP/mirrors/dictionaries, unless [www.associatedcontent.com/article/1314881/rupophobia_the_fear_of_dirt_or_filth.html?cat=70] this ("http://" removed from beginning of the url, so i can post it here) is, in which case this article is a copyright violation.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to use a different search method or engine. See Google Scholar for numerous good hits. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge The topic is notable - see any of the numerous books listed above. But it is essentially the same topic which we cover better at mysophobia - another name for the same thing. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Or redirect/merge/etc to mysophobia. Please note the google scholar search above; plenty of wp:v, I think. nom, please withdraw this afd, your claim of OR has been fully debunked. The article is a total mess, but (and why do I even need to say this here) that is not a reason to delete it. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fully debunked??? The original author signed it... twice.  Feel free to improve the article with the sources you have found if any of them indicate the significance of this condition.  From what I saw this was inaccurate and if I went on to make it accurate it would be nothing more than a dicdef - hence my suggestion to redirect to wiktionary.  Per SK I cannot withdraw the nom while there are other votes which are delete/merge/redir.   7  22:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, while the condition is certainly real the article is really full of OR - chock full of it:
 * Most suffers do not walk outside for fear of getting their feet dirty -- untrue/wrong or one person's view (hence OR).
 * As is the case with all phobias the suffer as experienced some tragic event...' - what?!? Seriously? You want the encyclopedia to say that all phobias come from a tragic event?
 * If you can sift through and remove the OR and have anything more than a dicdef left then yes, we should keep it. If you are able you should certainly fix it.  I was not able to find anything worth saving.   7  23:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record I would certainly agree to a redirect as Colonel Warden suggested.  7  23:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 7, thanks for your comments. I think i misunderstood, I thought you were implying that the idea of Rupophobia was OR or something, since that is what would have been relevant to an AfD. Thanks for clarifying. I think we're all in agreement that the page is a disaster as it stands. However, as I tried to say earlier, this is not a reason for deletion. Perhaps we should just redirect to mysophobia, something else we all seem to be in agreement on? ErikHaugen (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A redirect is most likely what the closing admin will do. However, just a note: your comment about what is relevant to an AFD is inaccurate.  It is not necessary for the entire concept of the article (or the subject itself) to be OR for OR to apply.  If someone had created the idea of Rupophobia themselves then it would be both WP:MADEUP, as well as (by definition) OR.  But in cases such as this, or in cases such as BLPs, or companies, or any article for that matter - the thing may be real (the Bio, the company, the phobia) but if the contents of the article are one persons opinion or feelings or research then OR definitely applies.  That is precisely what the OR policy is meant to protect us against.   7  03:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, that kind of content needs to go. But that doesn't mean the article needs to be deleted; I'm not sure what I said that you think is inaccurate here. It needs to be rewritten - at least stubbed, but not deleted. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping  11:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak keep It looks like this term was more common in the late 19th century, and that in the last 50 years, it didn't get mentioned except in dictionaries and alphabetical lists of phobias. If no effort is made to source it, then I'd say delete, but there's room to do that.  Notability does not expire, and like "brain fever" and "the vapors", this appears to have been notable back in the old days, but it appears that discomfort over uncleanliness (whether its rupophobia or mysophobia) is now treated as a form of Obsessive–compulsive personality disorder.   In the long run, it would be better to spin off articles from the general one that we have about OCD.  Mandsford (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mysophobia per above unless someone adds a sourced distinction to the article. -- Pink Bull  14:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm no sysop, but it sure feels like consensus here is to redirect to Mysophobia. I'll be happy to do the redirecting and address astonishment issues if we're in agreement? ErikHaugen (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  7  22:51, 4 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.