Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caffeinism 2

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep -- (drini's page|☎) 21:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caffeinism

This page barely survived a VfD on no concensus, and now that the articles overly protective author (who spammed the entire wiki with his website) no longer seems to be editing, I'm listing it again

The article is neologistic, and uses a term not used outside the Wikipedia for the use it pertains to be (it is used for caffeine addiction but not poisoning). The article was originally written to promote a website, which is no longer linked from that page. Kiand 21:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to the caffeine addiction page. Jtmichcock 23:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You mean the section of the main Caffeine article I have behind that piped redirect? Caffeine addiction links the article this AfD is on, oddly enough - going to re-redirect it, as its the wrong content. --Kiand 23:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep I disagree; "caffeinism" appears in the American Heritage Dictionary [1] as the toxic condition. Maybe there is some merging to be done, but this is a decent and sourced article with no violation of the deletion policy. — brighterorange (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Brighteroerange. Good article with verifiable references on notable condition. Capitalistroadster 01:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Brighterorange. The term also shows up in Medline in at least six article titles, and the summaries of at least three of those seem to be referring to a toxic condition. (e.g. people with paranoid delusions, cardiac arrhythmia, etc. Crypticfirefly 05:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article has problems and should never have survived the original VFD. First, it's weasely: "Caffeinism has been defined as the poisoning resulting from excessive intake of caffeine". Yeah, OK, who defines it that way? Second, this section is a red herring: "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) states: "The 4 caffeine-induced psychiatric disorders include caffeine intoxication, caffeine-induced anxiety disorder, caffeine-induced sleep disorder, and caffeine-related disorder not otherwise specified (NOS)." Notice that DSM-IV doesn't ever use the term caffeinism. Third, the single online reference given never uses the term caffeinism either. It's not wikipedia's job to push neologistic original research. Quale 06:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as it seems to be real and used outside Wikipedia and its mirrors, even if it isn't widely used by medical professionals. Cleanup if necessary. -- Kjkolb 08:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The term is used. But for something -completely different-. Which is something nobody on this or the previous VfD seemed to notice. Its not used for what this article claims it is, this article is utterly neologistic. --Kiand 09:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

If someone could point me to one of these "other uses", I'll rewrite the article around it. --Carnildo 19:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The only time this term is ever used is in a neologistic sense for caffeine addiction, not what the article content implies. It should not be rewritten, possibly redirected to the same section of caffeine as caffeine addiction currently is - or have that spun off into a seperate article, rather than leaving a trail of pseudoscience behind it. --Kiand 19:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep what a stupid nomination, strong keep. --Mateusc 00:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? --Kiand 11:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah [2] --Mateusc 17:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see your name there. I also see a VfD full of barracking from the articles author, and a bare no-concensus result, based on the fact that a new meaning for a pre-existing word was invented by the article, and with many keep voters having done nothing more than a Google Test without actually examining the results. --Kiand 17:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and edit as necessary. Kwertii 00:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is a biased article in contradiction with modern studies. This flies in the face of imformation available from scientific studies such as those at the Harvard School of Public Health. Vassyana
• Keep/expand. Exploding Boy 02:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keeep/Rewrite well sourced and documented article. Cool3 23:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The sources refer to either a different use of the term, or do not use the term, at all. We can't have articles using neologisms, even if the content is verifiable....

Actually, this article wouldn't need deletion if it just had a proper name.... which I'll go and do now.... --Kiand 23:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'll wait till the VfD is closed, which it could have been 4 days ago. --Kiand 23:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.