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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ipovlopsychophobia[edit]

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

The single reference actually says there is no such term. - Altenmann >t 07:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. Not in the OED & internet search only throws up insubstantial references.TheLongTone (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - new word, but old idea, known since at least the invention in the mid-19th C. The fear or taboo of being photographed is well documented. On WP, see Post-mortem_photography#Responses_in_contemporary_photography, Uluru#Photography, Visual_arts_by_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Photography, Photography by indigenous peoples of the Americas, Wilhelm_von_Gloeden#Attitudes_towards_his_work_during_his_lifetime_and_later, Chamula, etc. There are also lots of possible sources at "taboo against photography" on Google. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment A taboo is not a phobia.TheLongTone (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Made-up term that does not even occur in the given source, nor anywhere on GScholar, and that doesn't even establish that a phobia of being photographed exists, so renaming is not an option at this point either. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article, with the same "source", exists on simple as well. Does anyone know how to get it off that wiki? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I would call simple English!TheLongTone (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2013 (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.