Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nomophobia (3rd 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. Consensus is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomophobia[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism from a somewhat widely-reported press release (WP:ONEEVENT). There's been a smattering of use after that, but nothing that rises to the Medical reliable sources policy that it should be being held to. A great deal of the article is coatracking or synthesis; for example, the last sentence at time of nomination reads: Even though nomophobia is a fairly new concept, there are validated psychometric scales available to help in the diagnostic, an example of one of these scales is the "Questionnaire of Dependence of Mobile Phone/Test of Mobile Phone Dependence (QDMP/TMPD)" - the source for that information does not mention the neologism.

In short, a widely-reported press-release used the term, after which, it was occasionally revived. There's no evidence of the term being taken seriously by any significant number of people since then, however, and as a concept, it has very questionable validity. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Ugh. Okay, this one leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The problem with this article is that it is being written as if it were a medical condition, without there being any support for it being a medical condition. On the other hand, it is well sourced, as a term, from reliable sources, as a concept in pop-culture, or at least in modern counter culture (those damn kids and always needing to be on the phone all the time). As a cultural phenominon, it seems to be notable enough... there are multiple, indepedant reliable sources using the term, and the subject of the term (people paying attention to the fact that cell phones are now ubiquitous, and being upset that people seem to need them all the time now) seems obviously notable. The various sources all back up this being a cultural thing. Pity the article isn't written in terms of being a cultural phenomina. THAT SAID, I am opposed to deleting any article based solely on the current content of the article, ever. As much as this article sucks, I just can't bring myself to !vote delete. Fieari (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is well sourced about a notable topic, and the usage of the term does not seem to be concentrated around WP:ONEEVENT but span several years from 2010-2014. I don't think MEDRS applies as the article states "It is, however, arguable that the word "phobia" is misused and that in the majority of cases it is only a normal anxiety". That said I think there is an argument for deleting the SYNTH moving this article to a better name, if one can be found, to emphasize this is not a recognized medical condition but a cultural phenomenon. Intelligentsium 02:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG. Fieari hit the nail on the head. It needs to be written like a cultural phenomenon as opposed to like a medical article. See Trypophobia for an example of a better way it can be presented. I'm trying to work a little on nomophobia now. It's very similar to trypophobia in the sense that it's a pop psych neologism with enough coverage in mainstream media to warrant an article, but only primary research available as far as academic publications. Here are some quotes from the trypophobia article that I think sums up the deal with all of the random names of phobias that get press coverage and subsequently WP articles:

Abbasi said, 'professionals who study and treat phobias tend not to use all the Latin and Greek names that get tossed around on message boards and in the press.'^[1]... Psychiatrist Carol Mathews said, "There might really be people out there with phobias to holes, because people can really have a phobia to anything, but just reading what's on the Internet, that doesn't seem to be what people actually have.^[2]

—PermStrump(talk) 08:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fieari. 92.9.158.191 (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim that this is not notable is clearly false. For example, see Encyclopedia of Mobile Phone Behavior or The Wiley Handbook of Psychology, Technology and Society. Andrew D. (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. Multiple sources over almost a decade means the term passes GNG. Roches (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even the briefest search for sources returns enough to satisfy GNG. Just look at the number of scholarly sources which use the term in the title. Yes, it's a neologism, and satisfies WP:NEO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes GNG, 119 hits from HighBeam ranging in dates from March 2008 to May 2016. Merriam-Webster Unabridged added nomophobia to its lexicon in April 2016.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2016 (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.