Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surdophobia

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. czar 23:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surdophobia[edit]

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

Not notable. Mathglot (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Society-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because:

Not notable in the slightest. This is a neologism by a single individual that has not caught on.
Virtually no reliable sources. Of three occurrences on the internet, one is Wikipedia, another may be derived from it.
Possibly move to wikt:Surdophobia but imho does not reach the notability required to do that, either.

As the article itself acknowledges, this word was coined by a Dutch social worker. The word was accepted by a deaf researcher and was used in one work in 2003. Other than that, the word has seen very little usage. A competing word, Audism exists.

WP:AFD part B checks:

Google books: 69 results, but only the top 3 snippets actually contain the term. A search-inside-the-book on Result #4 shows no occurrences. Of results 1-3, #1 is the WP article, #2 has one reference to it on p 109 as a neologism, that is, the word is not used in running text for its meaning, but rather as "here's a word that's similar to this other word". Result #3 is from the Cram 101 series, which imho often consolidates inforemation from Wikipedia.
GG Archive check: zero results.

Finally, and perhaps not relevant other than to forestall any question about motivation, a personal note: I have studied ASL and worked with the Deaf community for a number of years and can vouch for the fact that discrimination against deaf people is real. The word, however, is not real.

Mathglot (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC) edited by Mathglot (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC) to remove delete reason 4; there have been a couple dozen article edits since the first one in 2012.[reply]

Notified: Users Belfastshane, Clr324, OttawaAC. Mathglot (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - neologism. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, thanks to Mathglot's research. A word used by only two or three people, with no significant discussion about the term, is not suitable for Wikipedia per WP:NOTNEO. /wia /tlk /cntrb 15:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Discrimination against the deaf/Deaf is a thing, I have experienced it myself, but I agree with Mathglot's reasoning. Mabalu (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2015 (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.