Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of phobias

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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 04:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of phobias[edit]

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

This supposed list has two problems. First, it is actually two lists. There's something to be said for the lists of prejudice "phobias" but it doesn't belong here. Second, the first list is out of step with current clinical practice. These are all specific phobias, but with rare exceptions these words are a function of people making up names for particular things to be afraid of. By and large they only exist in a few books/websites which contain such a list, and people copying from said works. We shouldn't be doing that copying. Mangoe (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:LISTN. This is a list of notable phobias. Perhaps cutting down on phobias that don't really exist, or clearly defining phobias in the article would better serve the problems you addressed.Sheepythemouse (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean to say that any of them exist? If you said, "I'm afraid of lizards", and I said, "clearly you have lacertophobia", well, your fear is real enough, but "lacertophobia" is just a word which may or may not be in some list somewhere. The point is that the name for all of them is "specific phobia"; people can make up lists of names and put them in books, but psychologists don't use those names, as far as I can tell, and from the point of view of diagnosis and possible treatment, one is like unto another. You can see this in the articles, many of list have the definition and then the same boilerplate text about phobias in general. Mangoe (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is a list of notable phobias, or that it should be. I'm not sure that the list should exist at all, but if it does exist it should be a list of verifiable phobias. Specifically, a list page like this is a good place to collect entries that are found to be verifiable and worthy of mention in the encyclopedia, but which aren't notable enough to merit having an article of their own.--Srleffler (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it's a list of notable phobias, and the list is useful for navigating between articles on the phobias. The "actually two lists" problem can be solved with a split (I'm not opposed to it, but I'm unsure if it's necessary). If there are any phobias that are "made-up," then the article for that phobia should be nominated for deletion, not this list. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The contention is that it is not a list of notable phobias, because specific fears are not as a rule notable. Mangoe (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but there are plenty of phobias that are notable, and those are the ones that are listed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few phobias that are notable as individual fears. Most of these seem to have been made up as a project in giving everything a name, but clinically everything here falls under specific phobia. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN. This is a well-formed list-based article with notability as an inclusion criteria, where notability of a specific phobia is based on having an article on WP. Clinical current practice regarding phobias is important and should be discussed somewhere on WP, but it doesn't have any bearing the notability of particular historical phobias--in each case notability depends on availability of reliable sources per WP:V and WP:GNG. Non-notable phobias (Quite a few such articles are currently up for deletion) can be cleaned from the list as needed. --Mark viking (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We can rename this "list of specific phobias" if need be, or we can also split off separate pages for the "prejudice" phobias (e.g. homophobia), but this article does satisfy WP:LSC (reliable sources describe these as legitimate terms for specific phobias) and WP:SALAT (the scope of the list is manageable). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Keep. Contrary to many editors above, I assert that this should be a list of verifiable phobias, not necessarily notable ones. One of the ways a list like this can add value is by covering entries that are worth a mention, but not worthy of having an article of their own. Per Wikipedia policy, every entry on the list must be verifiable. I would strongly support narrowing the focus to make it List of specific phobias, and requiring that every entry be supported by a reliable medical source, either in the list itself or in a linked article. In some cases, articles on individual specific phobias could be replaced by redirects to the list, if the article doesn't add any information beyond the list entry and specific phobia. --Srleffler (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is used to show definition of many phobias in one page, specifically fear of..., as well as navigation to phobia articles via links. I'm against renaming this page to list of specific phobias nor list of veritable phobias to keep the title plain. I'm alright to split off prejudicial phobias, but I would rather oppose splitting. Planet Star 05:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid list of notable phobias useful for navigation. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:LISTN thru WP:LISTPURP, accept that list needs to be cleaned up, references added, and so on. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt per TNT. almost every entry on this list is just "fun with greek" and is a nonexistent condition, and I groan at the number of AfDs we have before us to get rid of all the garbage. This can ~maybe~ be recreated from scratch with actual phobias. Folks above say this is "manangeble" but please read the third paragraph of the lead - the internet is filled with garbage lists like this and there is going to pressure from spammers to add garbage. My preference would be rely instead on Category:Phobias to help people find the valid ones that have articles in WP. Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Salting and TNT can't go together :P — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - List needs work, and clearer inclusion criteria need to be set, but it's a fine topic for a list. Maybe a good first step is to remove everything that we can't find a decent source for in a peer reviewed scientific journal or book? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the problem: what happens when this gets reduced to a relatively small number of entries which can be justified on the basis of common popular usage? At that point, it makes more sense to fold it back into the main article, where it can perhaps be defended. As long as it is a separate article, passers-by and "always improvers" will keep trying to copy the couple of lists that are out there back into the article, because that is what one does to list articles. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2016 (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.