Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smartphone zombie (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. This's not going to be deleted. Look at RM et al. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 11:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smartphone zombie

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Trying to fix a malformed AfD nomination by E.3 (I oppose deletion myself). Bondegezou (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medical article. Have brought useable points to digital media use and mental health. I have concerns about the POV and linguistic misunderstandings of the title. E.3 (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes merger not deletion. The proposed target, digital media use and mental health, is itself at AfD and so the fate of that page should be settled first. This merger is perhaps an attempt to save that other article but this seems inappropriate. This page is about a specific pedestrian phenomenon and it's more about traffic management than medicine. The other concerns are not stated. Andrew D. (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-established social phenomenon extensively covered by scholarly literature as well as the plethora of reliable sources already referenced in the article. The nominator's "concerns" are not reasons for deletion and they do not address the claimed lack of topic notability. Suggest withdrawal, and a reading ofWP:BEFORE. ——SerialNumber54129 10:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominator has in one day proposed 7 mergers into an article he recently created (and which has now just survived an AfD itself, but only on 'no consensus') and in which he has a stated COI. The nominator is new to Wikipedia and has been (naively) forum shopping on multiple issues. This is more of the same. I also suggest withdrawal and time allowed for the merger discussions to be concluded. Bondegezou (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for everyone's help. all of the above is true. I am just yet to see a rational reason for an article with such a title included on English Wikipedia when for so long social media addiction has gone neglected. It makes no sense to me. 11:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment If we must keep the article as traffic phenomena, all pro. Just change the title. The title is completely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. E.3 (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.3, an AfD is for discussion of whether an article should or should not be deleted. Discussion about other aspects of the article, e.g. changing its title or merging it with another article, would be better placed on its Talk page. If you are withdrawing your proposed deletion, please make that clear and this AfD can be shut down. If you are not, it would help if you could explain why you feel the article should be deleted more clearly, drawing on policy if possible. Bondegezou (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should be deleted because it is medical in scope, its title makes it stigmatising to sufferers of real medical conditions, and it appears to be a gallery of people who were using their smartphones as its primary intention. A new article if it is required about traffic and pedestrians should be written from the ground up. This article is not worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. E.3 (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reason 1 for deletion:

Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.

Reason 2:

Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

Reason 3: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia
E.3 (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles. E.3 (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar shows there is NO reputable source discussing this in this terminology. These people are not zombies. It is very clearly WP:NPOV incompatible, It is one of the most stigmatising articles I have ever seen. These people may or may not have real medical conditions. We have good articles on them all. E.3 (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see nothing in the current article that implies that this article is referring to a medical condition. I see nothing to suggest it is stigmatising a real medical condition. The article contains text and is not just a gallery of pictures. The article has multiple reliable source citations and appears to meet WP:GNG. There is no requirement for an article like this to have sources in Google Scholar. The article could do with improving, but AfD is not clean-up. Bondegezou (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason for there being nothing in the current article referring to it as a medical condition is because you deleted the 2018 Korean citation stating that the media are referring to the medical conditions. This appears to be a little tricksy. E.3 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added the 2015 book that uses this terminology that in psychological opinion led to moral panic around these theories and cited him saying that. It is my contention that this article is one of the other factors that led to this moral panic. E.3 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have put the citations back in. This is in the scope of Wikiproject Medicine. It does not comply with MEDRS and quite likely never will. so it must be deleted. E.3 (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics means a lot whist the term is common in Germany and other places where English is not the primary language, I note what the BBC stated on it. I couldn't have said it better myself. This pejorative label has no place in an encyclopaedia. E.3 (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gender bias 4/4 subjects in the gallery of "smartphone zombies" were female. What on earth guys? E.3 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCLICKBAIT- this page is one of the only talk pages I've seen with daily page counters. It seems to me some contributors may have had subconscious inclinations to use wikipedia as a soapbox, and clickbait this issue. I may have done the same at the time if I was paying attention, but I understand the policies a little better now. E.3 (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

consideration of withdrawal If my contributions to the article are allowed to stand I will withdraw the deletion nomination, and respectfully involved editors to help me with future extremely difficult consensus around the title to avoid stimatisation (which not just I note as we see from the BBC). Also the gallery needs to only show traffic signs and the like rather than people, to avoid stigmatising the subjects who may have mental health conditions or may be perfectly fine. Who ever took them does not know that. I will also try to find actors ONLY for the articles I wrote, I have no idea what was happening with the Romanian teenagers I have at digital media use and mental health, that was a mistake. IMHO article should focus on pedestrians and traffic and government responses, thats notable on its own. E.3 (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONS I hope will align with this discussion. This is not the zombie apocalypse, simply a controversial topic with a lot of linguistic misunderstandings, genuine care and concern from most if not all contributors. E.3 (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2019 (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.