- 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. east.718 at 07:29, November 24, 2007
"Widely accepted" neologism whose only sources are one random interview and a dictionary entry. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I accept that the word is used and sources could be found verifying this, however Wikipedia is not a dictionary.[[Guest9999 (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- Keep Not much of an article, but context is given there beyond what would fit into a dictionary entry. Needs expansion and further sourcing. DGG (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Almost non-existant on Goggle (and, for what it's worth, what one finds tends to show it to be connected to religion as much as to science). Not enough notability for an article. I might also mention that fobia as used in the article may be the name of a band, but it's neither a word nor an accepted alternate spelling. Tim Ross·talk 18:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails to meet the guideline for coverage of neologisms, which is how the article presents itself to us. Usage isn't enough, we need reliable sources about the term. Doubletongued dictionary fails reliablity as it is user generated content. For the potential alternative article on a phobia, we are looking for a solid source like the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. GRBerry 04:53, 24 November 2007 (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.