Deletion of Love-shyness (2nd nomination)

Comment: Not a recognised entity, fails  and . The article's main editor concedes that the concept is controversial.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Love-shyness&diff=587101959&oldid=586090577 Any salvageable content should be merged with shyness
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: could merge a bit with Shyness but as others have noted, this is a  concept promoted by a single author
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Based on Cas Liber's assessment of the other sources above, I do not think we have  or  (no ''recent'', ''independent'' secondary or tertiary sources discussing the topic in depth). With this same reasoning we should not have this content merged to any other page either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:MEDRS)

Comment: Reasons for nomination fail to pass muster. The article contains references from multiple sources This is absolutely not original reasearch, and calling it fringe is ludicrous, and inconsistent with discussions on other article talk pages of what constitutes "fringe." If it is mentioned in books published by oxford univeristy press, I think that makes shoots down any claims of . Let's not waste time deleting this as it likely will be restored again as more information about it continues to be published. There are dozens of articles that were deleted for the same reasons only to later be recreated when the topic became too mainstream to ignore--Special:Contributions/173.75.214.124|173.75.214.124
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS)

Comment: essentially fails as per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)