Talk:Ochlophobia

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 March 2010. The result of the discussion was delete.

Deletion discussion

I think that, deletion discussion aside, this article deserves to be kept. I'm not the author, but...

Valid phobia.
Deletion discussion had 2 delete !votes and 1 keep !vote. Is that consensus?
Whilst it may be a recent neologism, doesn't the sourcing still make it notable?

{{Sonia|talk|simple}} 07:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sonia, given the suspicious repeated deletion by (now) a blocked user. This should be discussed again, and properly. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enochlophobia was User:Xuz, a sock of User:Altenmann. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that one coming. Wow. I don't see why people do things like that... {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 08:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is internet, Sonia. The playing with hidden identities and with the trust of others seems to be quite amusing for some people. In one word: disgusting. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin: could you check the previous deleted versions of the article? Is the content referenced? If so, the restoration of the deleted material would be appropriate. In that case, I'll notify also the other participants at this AfD. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are virtually no deleted versions. User:Lectonar simply restored all of the revisions in the article history except for three that were written just today and are irrelevant to this discussion. Unless Lectonar did this because of the Altenmann issues, this is quite inappropriate; if Lectonar did this because of the Altenmann issues, I still disagree but definitely don't say that it's inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify — I don't have any good reason to believe that the restoration was performed inappropriately (sorry if it came across otherwise), so I'm not going to make a stink about this. However, I still don't think that this is Wikipedia-worthy, so I've renominated it for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was because of the Altenmann-issue; that whole affair is bad enough as it is, so better to renominate it for deletion. Lectonar (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) We already have an article on social anxiety disorder which describes these phobic symptoms. We should not as an encyclopedia create articles on phobias which are not medically recognised. This article is basically original research, wikipedia giving the air of authority for a phobia which is as stated is not recognised as existing. We are not doctors or psychiatrists and should not be deciding what is and what is not a disorder. The article really needs deleted. These symptoms can be described on social anxiety disorder. If I am wrong then references need to be given to demonstrate that this phobia is a medically recognised, diagnosable disorder. I am happy to be proved wrong and quality references provided, otherwise I think that it should be relisted for deletion.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fraudulent closing of the first nomination is my only concern here. I don't see how Lectonar's restoration of the article could be problematic, given the circumstances. The suitability of the topic for this project is a matter of another discussion. No problem with the AfD renomination, at least the process is transparent. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

list of phobias

Why this is listed there as "Enochlophobia" and is a redirect from that? 212.50.203.198 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]