Deletion of Enochlophobia (2nd nomination)

Comment: changed from ''redirect'' and with reservations. I still suspect that this will die as |nothing but a definition. By the sources offered to justify its inclusion, it was an http://books.google.com/books?id=CeBOAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Ochlophobia%22+-inpublisher:icon&dq=%22Ochlophobia%22+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&ei=_zjeS930K4WIlAT74vivCA&cd=6 outdated term in 1977. Another offers http://books.google.com/books?id=pPDm0yCo5dkC&pg=PA70&dq=%22Ochlophobia%22+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&ei=_zjeS930K4WIlAT74vivCA&cd=4#v=onepage&q=%22Ochlophobia%22%20-inpublisher%3Aicon&f=false two definitions, the other being "fear of vehicles". I have serious doubts that there will be sources to establish the historical significance, beyond conflicting dictionary definitions, but I'll give it a fair chance. As the term ochlophobia has more and older support, the article probably should be ochlophobia and enochlophobia should be the redirect
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDIC)

Comment: Voting keep on the same grounds as I did in the initial AfD. That the term has "infested the 'net" and "even books" is pretty clearly, to me, grounds for inclusion, not grounds for deletion. If it's a neologism, it appears to be a pretty sticky one. I support the deletion of neologisms in obvious cases where the term is either brand new and/or popped up on the web for a brief period a few years ago and then fell away. This does not appear to be the case with this term. "No such medical term" seems almost like an |I don't like it type of argument
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: per not a neologism. Being "obscure" to the layman is not cause for deletion of an artcle on a real term that has been in real use in real sources for many years... in newshttp://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-press+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Ochlophobia%22http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_user_ldate=1999&as_user_hdate=2010&q=%22Enochlophobia%22+source%3A%22-newswire%22+source%3A%22-wire%22+source%3A%22-presswire%22+source%3A%22-PR%22+source%3A%22-press%22+source%3A%22-release%22+source%3A%22-wikipedia%22&scoring=a&q=%22Enochlophobia%22+source%3A%22-newswire%22+source%3A%22-wire%22+source%3A%22-presswire%22+source%3A%22-PR%22+source%3A%22-press%22+source%3A%22-release%22+source%3A%22-wikipedia%22&lnav=od&btnG=Go and bookshttp://books.google.com/books?as_brr=0&as_pub=-icon&q=%22Enochlophobia%22http://books.google.com/books?as_brr=0&as_pub=-icon&q=%22Ochlophobia%22.  That it might take |work to |improve that article is not a cause for deletion of a subject when so much sourcing is available.  What is required is the |surmountable issue of expansion, cleanup, and sourcing... but not a deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEYMANN||WP:IMPROVE||WP:ATD)