Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atychiphobia

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atychiphobia[edit]

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

No WP:MEDRS references. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neutrality^talk 04:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - The article was massively padded with a) general content about phobias; 2) OR/SYN; 3) content based on sources that were about anxiety not phobia, some of which were 30-40 years old. A pubmed search for reviews yields nothing see? Just fun with greek. Jytdog (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT and absence of reliable medical sources, indeed absence of multiple sources of any sort. Nowhere near notable. It's about on the level of a special word for eaters of walnuts that found its way into a dictionary's introduction as an example of what the dictionary didn't need to include. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:56, 6 September 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.

Why was this completely removed instead of trimmed to a stub that at least keeps the definition? Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]