Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nomophobia (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Courcelles 03:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomophobia[edit]

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

This neologism seems to be have been created by a phone company as part of a PR exercise. All the references are to soft media stories about the neologism. I think this fails Wikipedia:Neologism#Neologisms as the sources given are all popular media about the time of the story, they are not reliable secondary sources as much as rehashes of the same press story. The non English versions are still using the same Daily Mail article as a reference. This article fails Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles) and Wikipedia:Notability. Secretlondon (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a news site, especially for cheap PR stunts such as this.--hkr Laozi speak 13:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
Delete, ditto and etcetera. "Nomophobia" would actually appear to actually be a well formed classical compound that ought to mean "fear of the law" (nomos). Being beyond the reach of telephones is a blessing, not a curse; no good news ever came over the damned thing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily true -- being beyond the reach of a telephone is a catalyst of serious anxiety for many. Consider the perspective of an elderly person who regularly walks down an icy, rural path. Consider the young, attractive woman who walks home through an urban ally every Friday night. Consider the businessman with a life threatening arrhythmia who travels alone. For all of these people, the abrupt absence of mobile communication can be world shaking. — C M B J 03:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, Wikipedia is not a news site. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 19:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice for renaming. I'm not a fan of buzzwords, but I'm also not convinced that we should do away with an article that describes a unique, documented psychological phenomenon. — C M B J 03:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, in accordance with our editing policy. BTW, how many of you get twitchy when you are cut off from Wikipedia...? :) Colonel Warden (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fundamentally, WP:V trumps every other policy and guideline. Are there a powerful lot of mainstream media sources describing this in significant detail? Yes. Done deal. Whether this is a legitimate psychological syndrome or not is not only irrelevant, but almost certainly beyond our professional qualifications and competence to judge. I'm also completely unimpressed with "seems to be have been created ... as part of a PR exercise" Either it has been - and the nom has credible evidence of this - or no credible evidence is available, and that's irrelevant too. (Come to that, what does it matter if it has? The bar is still not whether it's a promotional stunt or not, but whether it meets WP:V. It does.) Ravenswing 20:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They've done legitimate studies on this. Clicking the Google news search at the top of the AFD, I see 80 results. This is discussed in detail in various news sources. Dream Focus 22:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is notable, verifiable, and tertiary sources abound. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of the circumstances of its coining, the term abd its usage is backed by multiple resliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^babble 15:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is clearly notable, with plenty of sources. Any issues with this article can be fixed with ordinary editing. --Divebomb (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2010 (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.