Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliophobia

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 Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 19:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliophobia[edit]

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

The topic of the article is a neologism, based solely on non-reliable websites. 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) 21:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I feel that the article has been refocused in a direction that avoids the concerns I raised above.--Srleffler (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a neologism as Dibdin wrote a book with this title in the 19th century and Jackson wrote another in the 1930s. Two books on a topic makes it notable per the WP:GNG. Andrew (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Dibdin's book appears not to be relevant to the topic of this article, being an account of the habits of 19th century book collectors. Note that per WP:NOTDICT Wikipedia articles are organized by topic, not by name. A book titled "Bibliophobia" provides no support to this article at all, unless it is about the specific psychological condition that is the topic of the article.--Srleffler (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jackson's book is interesting, but appears to be about social and cultural phenomena (censorship, etc.) rather than a psychological condition. An article on that would be interesting. If someone wants to go that route almost every sentence in the current article would need to be deleted; perhaps only the first sentence could be kept.--Srleffler (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have now added a third source by Tom Shippey. We now have the work of at least three respectable and notable scholars to draw from. In developing the topic, we should follow their lead, rather than clinging to less reliable conceptions. Andrew (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The phobia is non-notable per the same arguments I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chionophobia. The two books are not about the phobia, but are laments about how people don't read enough.Sjö (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I've found enough sources to secure my belief that bibliophobia as the fear or dislike of books is a notable topic, but as a disposition or attitude (i.e. a neologism that satisfies WP:GNG) rather than a mental illness as given by this present article. This looks like a case of WP:BLOWITUP, but can I ask those !voting delete if you would have any prejudice against its recreation assuming reliable sourcing and different focus? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLOWITUP is not policy because it is contrary to the incremental wiki method detailed in our actual editing policy. Instead, we are encouraged to be bold in our editing and so I have updated the page in question. Page deletion was neither needed nor appropriate. Andrew (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the direction in which you've taken the article. Editors who have !voted "delete" should consider whether their opinion is changed by the rewrite.--Srleffler (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article was unreliably sourced until Andrew Davidson rewrite it. Now the article is reliably and scholarly sourced and establishing notability. Planet Star 23:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG and NEO with current version --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article must be treated in a different manner and not like most improbable phobias that we have been dealing with in the Project Medicine: here the word phobia is used metaphorically in the sense of aversion. References adequately prove its notability. NikosGouliaros (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After the change it's a new and much better article. Sjö (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator has withdrawn nomination. --Auric talk 14:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The AfD can't be closed based on the withdrawal since there are outstanding delete arguments/!votes, but at this point a snow close could be in order.. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:07, 24 October 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.