Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chionophobia

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 all. The raw numbers certainly favor deletion here, and I don't see that the advocates of keeping have adequately addressed the inherent problems with the topics that have been noted in the "delete" opinions. Deor (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chionophobia[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this is a notable phobia

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

NikosGouliaros (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To All- Phobia’s are a medical term that is well established. In fact we has a List of phobias here on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs) 13:29, 16 October 2014‎
Comment You probably mean Melophobia (fear), not the album. Sjö (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I mean melophobia (fear), and I apologize. NikosGouliaros (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. You can add almost any word to -phobia and come up with a new phobia and odds are that there is someone in the world that has it. Quote from List of phobias: "A large number of -phobia lists circulate on the Internet, with words collected from indiscriminate sources, often copying each other. Also, a number of psychiatric websites exist that at the first glance cover a huge number of phobias, but in fact use a standard text to fit any phobia and reuse it for all unusual phobias by merely changing the name. ... Such practice is known as content spamming and is used to attract search engines." The sources in most of the articles appear to be that kind of web sites. For the phobias to be notable they should be mentioned in WP:MEDRS for the parts about symptoms and treatment and they should be mentioned in "regular" WP:RS for other facts such as suffers or mentions in popular culture. As far as I can see all the articles fail to do that. Sjö (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: God-awful sourcing that falls far, far short of our regular RS guidelines, never mind MEDRS. No evidence that any of these "phobias" have ever been mentioned in serious sources. Most seem to have been made up for Scrabble, Trivial Pursuit or for advertising purposes. Delete the lot. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The sources are terrible, e.g.: FearofStuff (a blog); Phobia Fear Release ("How To Stop Phobia In Only 10 Minutes A Day! Guaranteed!"); Phobia Source (their stated aim is to list every phobia and fear, including any that people mail in). These articles don't even begin to demonstrate notability. I found no indication that any of these are notable. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I changed the article samhainophobia by replacing two refs and changing contents to reflect it. I think that the article and sources (more surely from Forbes) are good enough, so the proposed deletion of samhainophobia shall be cancelled from the bundle. If not, I can keep working on it. To make matters better, I see there is a book titled "Samhainophobia: Fear of Halloween", but there is no content in the page. Planet Star 01:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PlanetStar, thank you for your input. Unfortunately, I do not think that the new citations meet the criteria of reliable sources; the Forbes citation only cites the other blog source the WP article cites. It also mentions possible treatment, which is merely the standard treatment of phobias. Moreover, the problem in the above articles is not the lack of citations; is the lack of sources that prove the notability of the above conditions. All the above phobias are mere neologisms; making a new article for every one of them would turn Wikipedia into a dictionary. NikosGouliaros (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I added citations using about.com, which I thought they're reliable source. Planet Star 22:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow wikipedian, please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). An example of a phobia that can be supported by reliable references - and therefore could be added to a legitimate list of phobias, as it has been proposed in the relative discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine - is severe-weather phobia, described here. Though ironically I think there is no article for the specific phobia - not that there should be. NikosGouliaros (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The sourcing is entirely unacceptable, and the 'phobias' appear to be neologisms invented either as word-games, or as click-bait for websites promoting supposed 'cures'. Unless and until it can be demonstrated that a supposed 'phobia' is discussed in sources complying with WP:MEDRS, we have no business implying that such specific phobias have any recognition at all. Clinical psychology isn't an exercise in labelling, and cobbled-together pseudoscientific terminology is neither necessary nor appropriate in treatment of anxiety disorders. The terms are non-notable by Wikipedia standards, being found nowhere but in sources which exist solely to promote them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, well-said.--Srleffler (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any that lack reliable sources.--Srleffler (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Participants in this discussion may also be interested in:

Srleffler (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to all Yes they could use citations, but putting [citation need's] on there would probably help solve that problem. They include useful information - they're actual medical conditions. Is there a project devoted to phobias to take these under their wing? Ballplayer62 (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If these are actual medical conditions, it should be possible to find a medical source that discusses them. The issue is not just that the articles lack reliable sources, but that it is not clear that any such sources exist. It's also not clear that any of the information in these articles is useful or accurate, and not better covered at specific phobia.--Srleffler (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not that it's not clear that any sources backing these conditions exist; it's clear that such sources do not exist... Only vestiphobia has one case report in a medical journal, which is not sourced in PubMed, and is just not enough to prove notability. NikosGouliaros (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These are non-topics. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 01:46, 20 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.