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. An obvious concern for nominations of this type of subject is that editors may comment based on political bias rather than Wikipedia policy. However, in this case the comments seem to legitimately reflect the state of the sources, which include material from the claimed coiner of the term (not independent), uses of the term (which makes them primary, not secondary sources for discussion of a neologism), and brief definitions (not significant coverage). Therefore I see no reason to discount the clear majority consensus for deletion. Since this seems like a distinctive search term, no prejudice against creation of a redirect if there is a target article with relevant, sourced material. RL0919 (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoplophobia[edit]

Hoplophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a neologism coined by a firearms expert to mock gun control advocates, saying people have an "irrational fear of guns." In the previous AfD from 2015, people conflated this non-medical political pejorative with "real" entries in medical dictionaries to justify notability. Of course, if the article is about the psychological phobia, almost none of the sources meet WP:MEDRS. If it's about the neologism, the medical sources are inapplicable. Neither is notable on their own, but it was closed as no consensus. Nominating one more time, with some time gone by, to see if we can find a consensus. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been linked to from WikiProject Medicine. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I disagree. The page is notable for just being a term that is widely covered in RS. It does not need to be a diagnosed psychological phobia to warrant a page. Nothing new introduced in this AfD that wasn't already addressed in the previous two. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Which topic are you saying is notable? By your third sentence, I presume the neologism, not the psychological phobia? Which are the sources that make it notable? In the previous AfD, people combined both subjects to claim single notability, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- two sources about different subjects that happen to have the same name doesn't make the subject notable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• A good example, here. I see you just added this citation to the article, which is clearly making claims about a psychological disorder but does not satisfy MEDRS: Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh... and a self-published book called Democracy --- The Painted Whore --- An Extremist Explains War, Drugs, Guns, God, Gold and Santa Claus... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hoplophobia is a real phobia as evidenced by the medical references. Of course the word is not widely printed in medical journals because of its obscure nature and limited relevance. However, to say the word doesn't warrant a page would be to say it doesn't exist because to the extent it does exist it describes a condition that obviously warrants a page. The word hoplophobia does exist of course because we are using it now to describe the fear of firearms/weapons. Jeff Cooper used the exact same word to mean the exact same thing as the medical journals. His use of it to describe a political phenomenon he disagreed with does not subtract from its legitimacy as a word. I disagree with the argument that because a word was used by vastly different parties one cannot combine the use by both parties to legitimize the word because in this case the word was used by the two parties to describe the exact same phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieltexas (talk • contribs) 05:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoplophobia is not shown to be a real phobia, as the sources you've used are far too weak to support a biomedical claim per WP:MEDRS. The word exists, but doesn't warrant a page, except in a dictionary. Existence =/= notability. I exist, but I don't warrant a page. There is no recognised medical condition that the word describes. If there were, we would have sources meeting MEDRS. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, that's the argument that decides notability. --RexxS (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It is notable for both topics however, the term alone and its coverage in RS is enough to meet general notability requirements. The sources, as the nom mentioned, are not about two subjects that happen to have the same name. They are one is the same... Hoplophobia would be compared to Islamophobia. The same rational editors arguing for deletion are using could be used against Islamaphobia yet, I see no issues raised on that page. Meatsgains^(talk) 18:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not notable for the medical topic. There is no medical condition and we know that because there are no WP:MEDRS sources describing the condition. The dictionaries attesting to the existence of the word contain insufficient content to write an article, WP:DICTDEF. There's no point in comparing it to a different article because it's not the same consideration. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --RexxS (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You can join any word with phobia to create one. What bar do we need for these? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary - WP:NOT#DICT. The neologism should not be there. There should be no debate on that one. The medical condition is where there may be some debate, but in this case the quality of sourcing does not meet GNG and it is hard to see how this can be argued to be an accepted medical condition considering the silence of all major and reliable sources on the matter. This from Danieltexas is telling: "Of course the word is not widely printed in medical journals because of its obscure nature and limited relevance". So those supporting keep admit it is not found in medical journals because it is obscure and of limited relevance. Thus it does not meet GNG. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I think the article as it is strikes the right tone: it puts the term in the context of its use in politics. This is not a medical diagnosis and "hoplophobia" should not be portrayed as a medical diagnosis (as it is without appropriate WP:MEDRS-compliant references). However, there isn't enough evidence of notability for an article, so we should not have an article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The sources used in the article are not good enough to support any medical claim about the existence of a phobia. They are certainly sufficient to show that the neologism exists, as most of them are dictionaries. However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there is insufficient content in the sources to write an encyclopedic article on the neologism. --RexxS (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per RexxS rationaleOzzie10aaaa (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and pretty much everyone else. Praxidicae (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• ’’’Delete’’’ or we’re going to need Neologophobia any day now LeadSongDog come howl!
• KEEP MEDRS is irrelevant. The topic clearly passes GNG, as both the word itself, and the social phenomenon the word describes are discussed at length in independent sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid deletion reason. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to phobia. Probably not a real medical term, but a valid search term regardless. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE This should never have been an entry. It is not a legitimate medical term and it only serves as a pejorative for pro-gun people to denigrate gun control people. There is a Wiktionary entry and that should suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.208.203 (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt article appears to be getting out well over its skis. Would be an appropriate paragraph on a page about gun advocacy in the US but doesn’t stand up on its own. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2020 (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.