Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travel aversion

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. Sandstein 17:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Travel aversion

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence that this is a phenomenon that has been the subject of sustained comment by academics or laypeople. In total, there are 24 hits for it on Google Scholar, and most appear to be more or less casual, non-technical uses. The term was used as a study parameter in

doi:10.1300/J073v20n01_01 and briefly commented indoi:10.1111/1468-5973.12213, but there is very little else substantial I can see. While it is true that people may not like to travel in certain circumstances, it is not clear to me that this topic could be the subject of an article that does not consist of synthesis or original research. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination already cites some sources and it's easy to find more such as this, that and more which clearly classify and detail those who dislike travelling, being homebodies, risk-averse and the like. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DELREASON#14:Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Specifically, this violates WP:NOTESSAY as it is unmistakably an essay, and has been so since its creation in 2012. WP:TNT applies here; it would be easier to start over from scratch than to fix this (assuming we should even have an article on this topic; I have not assessed the WP:Notability here, so I have no opinion on that particular matter). I'll note that the user who created this, Gzorg, has created other essays in the user namespace, such as User:Gzorg/Vitamin B12. It's kind of charming to read, actually. I suppose one WP:Alternative to deletion would be to move this to User:Gzorg/Travel aversion. TompaDompa (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads as original research, just a generic description of who don't like a particular activity. Do we have articles about people who dislike watching or playing sports, or dislike reading, or dislike driving? Surely one can dig up desriptions of these attitudes. Reywas92^Talk 15:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could an actual real article be created under this name? Possibly, though I am actually highly doubtful of that based on a couple of brief searches on the term. Should we keep this stub around until such an article is created? Absolutely not, as it is pure WP:OR, and Wikpedia is not a publisher of original thought. Rorshacma (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Andrew🐉★Trekker (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, as this article still fails WP:NOTESSAY. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. These are just two words used to describe how someone feels that someone used to create an essay WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY. It is not a subject for an encyclopedia. // Timothy :: talk 16:59, 21 September 2020 (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.