Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nomophobia

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The result was keep, nomination withdrawn; sole delete comment was per nom and before article improvement

[edit] Nomophobia

Nomophobia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

WP:NEO. Skomorokh 15:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn per The Heymann Standard. Skomorokh 16:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep Needs expansion, but the term is referenced to a reliable source and has 36k ghits. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 15:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. WP:NEO per nominator plus WP:NOT#DICT. Ros0709 (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongest possible keep. Term itself has received significant coverage:

Nomophobia, the latest in the stress list. (2008, April 2). The Statesman.)

Of all the things that you can be stressed of... (2008, April 1). The Statesman,

Nomophobia, the plague of our 24/7 age. (2008, March 31). Daily Mail,5.

It has coverage in several outlets. Things that are this obviously notable should not be deleted. Neologisms are fine articles if they have received this much coverage as terms. Those of you favoring the deletion of articles like this should do a few basic searches before rendering such opinions. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment Notability is not an issue here, nor are sources. The issue is that "articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate". Those of you favouring the keeping of articles like this should read the six-character long nomination before rendering such opinions. In good humour, Skomorokh 15:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This AfD is to determine whether or not the topic is notable enough to have it's own article. Arguments dependent on the current state of the article are irrelevant, as those can be solved by methods other than deletion, such as editing the article. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I've expanded the article and added just a few of the innumerable sources that cover the topic. Nominator may want to take a second look and consider withdrawal. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Also, the relevant sections of WP:NEO regarding acceptable articles should be reviewed:

"To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:13, 6 April 2008 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.