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 `'Míkka>t 06:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episcophobia[edit]

Episcophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable or newly coined neologism; google only pulls up nineteen results, and few of those are relevant. There are virtually no reliable secondary sources for this term, therefore I believe it should be deleted. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems more likely to make a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia article. I found some mentions of the term, but one was as preference to ignore the Epistles (not what this article described), and this one suggests not an irrational fear but just a dislike of the power of bishops, this one looks like a hatred of "higher clergy" for some policy they had in the East. In all, a very disparate set of usages suggesting that the term isn't in common enough use to have solidified a meaning. A few mentions that don't form a pattern do not establish notability. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The foregoing links attest that this has been around for a long time which ipso facto makes it notable. The different interpertations are all the more reason to keep the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But they're all just passing uses of the term, there's nothing substantial. WP:Original research would be required to create an article out of them. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep GBooks and Scholar hits show its in use. I don't think OR is needed to put together an article on the term's historical use. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason I suggested that OR would be required is the few references found are all primary sources. No secondary sources have been uncovered that interpret what the term means. So we'd have to interpret it ourselves, which is OR. Especially given that they are mostly historical uses, requiring historical interpretation. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sources or not, this is a WP:DICDEF. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As may see in google/googleBooks, this is a very occasional coinage, no encyclopedic content whatsoever. Laudak (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If one or more documents came to light that discussed the phenomenon described by this term in reasonable depth, then it might be notable and wouldn't be a WP:DICDEF. That's the only circumstance I can see whereby this article should be kept. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A non-notable neologism. Also, per WP:DICDEF. Nsk92 (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I doubt the article can be more than just a dictionary definition. -- Taku (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2008 (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.