Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathisophobia

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. Dennis - 2¢ 21:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cathisophobia[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 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) 21:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into akathisia. Andrew (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per the same arguments I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chionophobia. Akathisia doesn't seem to be a specific phobia, from what I can make out from the article, but I confess that I've never heard of it before. Sjö (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of all the results in Google Scholar, only a couple are scholarly articles, and they seem to use cathisophobia as a synonym of acathisia. However, it is too rare a word to even merit a disambiguation page. NikosGouliaros (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Virtually no Google Scholar hits. Seems popular on blogs and other unreliable sources, but that's not much help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not the mainstream medical term, not a common usage, not a source in sight of substantive coverage with a shred of reliability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:19, 22 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.