Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Glass Addiction

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. Michig (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Glass Addiction[edit]

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

a single case report does not make for ntoability DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This may be worth a very brief mention on the Google Glass page, but this is not notable enough for a standalone article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Belongs in Google Glass, if anywhere. Basie (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spare mention in GG article; otherwise just a time-filler piece for the local health report where it's read rip-and-read without further elaboration. Nate • (chatter) 10:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single patient described in a case report on a disorder that the authors acknowledge is 'not officially a clinical diagnosis according to the most recent version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)'. It will make for nice headlines though. Lemnaminor (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete News story, and rather trivial at that, as per comments above. No real value as a standalone article that I can see at this point, although it might just about make a sentence in Google Glass. Libby norman (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge This is a special case of a more general issue which we seem to cover at mobile phone overuse. That's not a very good page currently but this is a well-recognised social issue now and, as such devices become increasingly wearable and intimate, we'll be hearing a lot more about it. Per our editing policy, we can merge this case into a more general article like that pending further developments. Andrew (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on delete - perhaps a merge would be necessary if this was a reoccurring news story but it seems like a silly story for a slow news day. Gloss 03:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:JUSTBECAUSEITCOMESUPONTHESIDEOFYOURFACEBOOKDOESNOTMEANITNEEDSANARTICLE--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2014 (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.