Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chocoholism


 * 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   Userfy. Moved to User:MelanieN/Chocoholism. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Chocoholism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article is a train wreck of original research and unverified claims. The article does not discuss the topic at all, and almost qualifies as a coatrack, except that it doesn't seem to focus on anything. Not a single reference in sight, and consists of little more than a dictionary definition and a torturous, tedious etymology, both of which are more appropriately handled at Wictionary. (The talk page of the article dutifully notes that it has been transwikied, but I'm not going to speedy this and put up with endless whining about out-of-process deletions).  Horologium  (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree; an earlier article on this name was moved to Wiktionary. Anything worth while here should be added to the Wiktionary chocoholic article or the chocolate article. Infrogmation (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete until serious information becomes available on the topic. Ironically enough I just finished a chocolate bar before typing this. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unsourced neologism. I can actually see an article on this topic emerging someday, but with no independent cites this stands as speculative original research and needs to go away. Delete without prejudice as to future recreation. —Carrite, Oct. 10, 2010.
 * "Chocoholism, if maintained, may result in over-consumption of chocolate..." Are you kidding me? Strong delete VictorianMutant (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a real word, which I've heard used in popular culture, but a neologism certainly. Delete without prejudice. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep "Chocoholic" is no longer a neologism - it is in widespread use. The term chocoholic has been used at least once in a mainstream medical journal, the American Journal of Perinatology, and the PubMed index finds dozens of journal articles about "chocolate craving" (without using the word chocoholic). There is a series of mystery novels called the Chocoholic Mysteries . That's not even counting the common use of the term at hundreds of blogs and websites, such as Chocoholics Anonymous . (I know it's not a criterion, but "chocoholic" gets 845,000 results at Google - that makes it a pretty widely accepted "neologism".) The article can/should be rewritten to describe craving/addition to chocolate rather than etymology. Would you all agree it is a keeper if that is done? I'm not going to do the work if it is going to get deleted anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW: If there is a positive response to my suggestion for a rewrite but the result is still "delete", closing administrator please userfy to me. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2010 (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.