Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginitiphobia


 * 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.  → Call me  Hahc  21  05:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Virginitiphobia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The topic of the article is a neologism, based solely on a non-reliable website. As noted at List of phobias, there are many unreliable lists of phobias that can be found online. Wikipedia's policies require that there be reliable sources that discuss a named phobia, before we create an article on it. Srleffler (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I found one just other mention in reasonable sources, at Kluger, J., Cray, D., Liston, B., & Plon, U. (2001). FEAR NOT! (cover story). Time, 157(13), 52. But that's sourced to the same dubious source as our article - so yes, this looks bogus. Alexbrn talk 05:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of notability. The sole source citet is entirely non-compliant with WP:MEDRS, and indeed with WP:RS in general: "If you happen to come across a phobia that we have not listed please contact us and we will be sure to include it." AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: Like I stated at WP:Med, the Virginitiphobia article is not Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS)-compliant, and the term virginitiphobia is a non-WP:Notable neologism; WP:Neologism is clear on matters such as these. Flyer22 (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as already noted, the sources found are not reliable and seems dubious. Non notable WP:Neologism.  Jim Carter (from public cyber)  08:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable neologism. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is no paper in Pubmed that mentions this. It appears to be a neologism. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  22:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable per the same arguments I gave at Articles for deletion/Chionophobia.Sjö (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Random -phobia neologism.  Seems to have some traction in non-reliable sources (such as Urban Dictionary), but that's hardly applicable to a medical topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2014 (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.