Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bambakomallophobia

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. Since the editor who originally contested the previous PROD has now !voted for deletion, and since this seems to be snowballing anyway, an early close seems warranted. Note that I was the admin who originally undeleted the article, and I've briefly discussed it with Gstridsigne; if anyone feels that I therefore shouldn't be closing this discussion and that it should run its full course, please contact me. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bambakomallophobia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable phobia - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Contains massive original research and "if..." statements. Absolute failure in terms of medical references. This is in no way an appropriate topic for inclusion, and was deleted after PROD and should have stayed that way ES &L 09:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE!!: We just undeleted it! It is a legitimate and notable phenomenon, and I think should be kept. Give us some time to work on the article so that it is up to Wikipedia standards. It was literally, undeleted about a half an hour ago! This seems more like an axe-to-grind than a nomination for a legitimate article for deletion. Gstridsigne (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's something in progress, and fails to meet Wikipedia's most basic standards, it should be in either WP:AFC or a sandbox - this "article" should not be articlespace whatsoever. It's dangerous to people right now because it's purporting to be a medical article ES &L 10:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The one reference it contains doesn't mention the topic. This looks to fall somewhere between urban legend and hoax.—Kww(talk) 12:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It most certainly is NOT an urban legend or a hoax. It is a legitimate phenomenon, because I experience it. My sister experiences it too, and there might actually be a genetic-component to it. When I requested undeletion, I had no idea the stringent criteria for medical condition articles on wikipedia. It most certainly does ride the cusp of a psychological/neurological condition, but has not been researched and/or published in any medical journals that I could find. I have accepted that it should be deleted for this reason, but it is offensive to dismiss it as a hoax, urban legend, or illegitimate. All in all, know that it is a legitimate condition, but because of the lack of research, I support deletion, at this point. More research in the medical academia must be done to warrant an article, but DO NOT be so offensive to delete it as a hoax. So I choose to change my vote to delete. Gstridsigne (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources attesting to the existence of this phobia, at least under that name. ... discospinster _talk 17:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless serious references from reliable sources are produced. Anyone can get a Greek dictionary and make up phobias, and some of them get onto "Gosh, fancy that!" sites or "List of weird phobias" books, but we should not have an article unless there is solid, published evidence to show that this is a real condition which is taken seriously. That is particularly important for a medical subject. I have found a good deal of chat on Twitter and blogs and the like, but nothing reliable. Most significantly, there is no mention in Pubmed, and no mention in the NIH database. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that we should not have articles on random "disorders" that do not exist in medical literature, especially when the articles make conjectural medical claims. Without reliable sources to establish that this actually exists and is notable, we should simply leave the original research to Wikia and blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.