Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enochlophobia (2nd nomination)
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
— User:MichaelQSchmidt, 21:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:HEYMANN||WP:IMPROVE||WP:ATD (Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard)