Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scriptophobia

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) 05:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scriptophobia

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

No WP:MEDRS references. despite being tagged for notability since 2014 Staszek Lem (talk) 16:34, 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]

Delete. I did find a couple of articles published in the scientific literature describing attempts to offer therapy to people who had showed some phobic avoidance of writing in public: a 1985 case study of one person [1] and a 1981 study with three persons [2]. The 1981 study by Biran, Augusto and Wilson has been cited by at least 40 other articles, with many of these being other authors writing on phobia topics. But so far, there is not enough here to demonstrate notability. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:32, 3 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 - A pubmed search for reviews yields nothing see? and the content mistakes anxiety for a phobia. Different animals. This article is just OR fun with greek. Jytdog (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Amount of people studied is too small to draw any concrete conclusions.Fruitmince (talk) 17:35, 9 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.