Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siderodromophobia

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 redirect to Fear of trains. Sandstein 08:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Siderodromophobia[edit]

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

Fails WP:MEDRS. No significant coverage beyond phobia content spammers. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Cursory search shows it to be a real thing, though, better sourcing and CE needed. DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources idnicate this is not a medical issue, therefore MEDRS does not apply here. Nonetheless, it needs to meet other criteria such as GNG, and I feel it does. Pwolit iets (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete zero MEDRS sources - no reviews in pubmed; none in PsyNet (can't save searches there). The sources in the article used to support descriptions are not reliable for content about health. just another pseudopychnology fun with greek term. Delete and salt like the rest. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the bulk of sources discussing it are not health-related this seems more a social concept than medical, although I agree that the article needs to be revamped in roder to reflect that. Pwolit iets (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the sections and content are "Symptoms", "Complications," and "treatment". that is WP:Biomedical information. I get it that you are confused about what is biomedical content and that it appears that you are beginning a campaign to try to redefine what is biomedical in WP per this and this and things you have written elsewhere in WP. You are going to run into a very solid brick wall in that effort - especially since you seem to have no clear concept of what is and is not medical, and to the extent you start promoting pseudoscience you will face discretionary sanctions; i just provided you notice of them. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that according to your logic each page under category fear constitutes a medical article? Pwolit iets (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. There are actual specific phobias from which people seriously suffer, and they are treated that way by the medical/psych professions and here in WP. There are also a bunch of "fun with greek" bullshit "phobias' that people like to create/coin and make long lists of and pass around the internet. Read the last paragraph of the lead of List of phobias Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What if I added a sentence about "complications" of alarmism. Would that article suddenly become medical? Pwolit iets (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POINT. I am done here. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively and Redirect to list of phobias with the rest of them. Not seeing enough here for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. No indication of significance or reliable sources. -- Begoon 06:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to specific phobias. While I "like" these type of articles, the pretty clear consensus in the recent past of AfD has been to delete or redirect such articles. This case is even more extreme an example of a non-notable phobia; there is virtually no peer-reviewed literature about the topic. We've hashed this subject out, let's move on. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with current sources plus sources such as this one in-depth and mentions in books.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the first is a gee-whiz trivia article about words related to trains (no one denies the trivia value of "fun with greek"); the second uses the term in passing in the subtitle and never goes back to discuss "fear of trains". Neither is MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, everything that is not MEDRS is simply trivia, so you'll delete 95% of the encyclopedia if its not MEDRS. Puh-leeze. Read the general notability guideline which says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Coverage? Check. Reliable sources? Check. Independent of the subject? Check. => Keep.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DEL8 for lack of notability. Setting aside the MEDRS issue, I see no nontrivial coverage in reliable sources sufficient to meet GNG. As for the sources provided by Tomwsulcer: they are both mere passing mentions; additionally, the piece in The Week that claims siderodromophobia was once synonymous with a type of injury strains credibility, and the second barely mentions the subject at all. Rebb ing 19:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Fear of trains if the concept is notable (otherwise delete). Duh! There are sources for the -phobia word, but most of those are using it with the intent to be pedantic. If it -phobia word was found to be MEDRS-worthy, I would advocate to keep as the technical word for the concept (painkiller is a redirect), but since it has not stuck, move to the common name.

Of course, it will lose a few sentences like "stuffophobia is the fear of stuff", but that is kind of the point. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to move in the text. You are very welcome to write the article Fear of trains, based on no-fool sources. In any case, it is a good idea to painlessly kill off lots of tautological "stuffophobia" articles by creating Fear of stuff pages. By the way, "Fear of things" gives 1,8 million google hits. Time to write the article! :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist - not done so in 13 days. Nordic Nightfury 06:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 06:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fear of trains. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article is actually pretty well done. am ok with redirect. I don't know that this is such a generalizable solution; turns out that "fear of trains" is a thing in the psychoanalytic Freudian tradition, stemming from the man himself. Pyschoanalysis itself is considered mostly pseuodscience today but hey, there is indeed an article at fear of trains that is ok in my view. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 8 October 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.