Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital dependencies and global mental health


 * 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Digital dependencies and global mental health

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )



Lots of reasons for deletion. Duplicates an existing article. WP:NOTESSAY. Very odd title consistent with same. WP:SPLIT which may be better addressed by discussion on the original article. Lots of original synthesis. Tom (LT) (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the nomination, the article has received a lot of attention, with most of my major concerns addressed and a lot more hands / eyes on board. I agree the new title makes a lot more sense and is in fact a topic notable enough to be covered here. For what it's worth, I withdraw my nomination. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This article has changed considerably from when it was nominated. It still requires a lot of work and there are many unresolved issues, but AfD is not clean-up. At this point in time, I support weak keep, but happy for the issue to be re-visited once other merge discussions have been settled and some stability reached. Bondegezou (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This article has changed considerably from when it was nominated. It still requires a lot of work and there are many unresolved issues, but AfD is not clean-up. At this point in time, I support weak keep, but happy for the issue to be re-visited once other merge discussions have been settled and some stability reached. Bondegezou (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not ducking MEDRS at all. We need to recognise very carefully that the words "use" "addiction" "dependence" and "overuse" are exactly the same - the same topic - there is just differentiation in terminology here. I'm not married to any titles. I simply contend that as social media addiction (or dependence or overuse) or whatever should and must be separate as that predominantly affects women and girls. Womens health are presently happy for that to be a top importance article. This article is meant to try to cover them all in their broader societal context. MEDRS certainly applies. We are not able to include the most reliable study due to unknown reasons that editors do not comment on. This is the reason for the RfCs and the notices. Linguistics should come to consensus. We do not comment on the content of digital addict or screen time which in my opinion breaks guidelines to far greater extent. We need to take into account all disciplines opinions here. Neuroscience portal members thanked me for joining, we need more neuroscience. We have to develop consensus around linguistics. Having a start class article about social media addiction is OK considering womens health are happy to have it rated high importance. Because it is. E.3 (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge with caution This article was originally a fork of Social media addiction and most of the content had previously been removed from that article per WP:SYN. It looks like the WP:SYN has mostly been trimmed and there may be some useful non-duplicate content that can be merged. –dlthewave ☎ 13:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is addressing in a far better, much more WP:SYNTH and WP:MEDRS compliant way with top importance from all associated portals than digital addict which for some reason all editors are not commenting on. I have brought all usable things from that article across. We should delete that one and keep this separate, I have no idea why its only my edits on the issue being questioned. And my questions remain unanswered about ADHD. This is against the policies of false balance and weight, its getting a little bit over the top now, I've attracted as much attention from quite literally any other editor, but linguistic gymnastics is causing some severe WP:POV issues here. E.3 (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Increasingly prevelance of mental health issues over the last 8 years or so do indeed represent a huge problem. For American girls for example, rates of major depressive episodes & sucide seem to have increased by close to 100%. Thousands of reasearchers are invsestigating the links with digital, and the article does a fair job of capturing this.  Only weak keep however as I partly share the nom's concern about synth. Synth concerns could IMO be significantly reduced if the article was re-titled to either Digital technolgy and mental health or Digital platforms and mental health. Such a change should also help with NPOV, as it then becomes easier to include the many positive findings about tech's impact on mental health.  If E.3. agrees with this, I'd be happy to upgrade my vote to strong keep. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not up to E.3 to agree or not. No-one owns any article. It is up to the community. Bondegezou (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Like I said, the preference intensity of my vote is entirely up to E.3. Whether or not a re-title is allowed to stand is indeed a matter for the community. Hopefully folks will work collaboratively with E.3. to improve the quality of the article, as while of huge impact & notability, this is admittedly not an easy topic to write about. Time will tell. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I comment that it was not an essay at all because I quoted things all the time before and then I was told it was not free. This is not quasi science. Consensus at the moment is against improving hard science. No one tells me why. This is allowed to include philosophy sociology anthropology and they all have their feet in the game. Perfectly happy to change it to any title “digital technology and mental health” sounds fine to me, I have six other suggestions open for comment —-E.3 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree the article is neither an essay or quasi science. Many editors have tried to explain why you've been getting push back. In brief, you're trying to move too fast. Let me give you some examples. You chosen one of the world's most pressing and complex topics to write about. You tried to have the article elevated to our highest status on day one! Folk tried to give you advise about the danger of being too enthusiastic and the need to let the article improve "over time". Instead you put the article up for GA status on day two. That's almost as hasty as trying to get your article promoted to FA on day 1. Especially as you clearly don't yet have the experience to know how guidelines like  WP:Synth & WP:NOR are applied. There's lots more to it of course but this isn't the place for a long and comprehensive answer. Again, sorry if this is disheartening. As said, this is a hugely important topic and I'd sure I'm not the only one who would very much like you to succeed in helping to build a good article on the topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thankyou very much for this FredHuxtable and i agree with both your comments here and on my talk page. I will change the title to digital media use and mental health - we need to focus on association, we need to quote those who say its nothing if theyre reliable etc etc. etc. All the mentioned specialties are involved. I'll leave social media addiction to more experienced editors as that essay is far too stressful for me personally to edit - due to the edit conflicts, not my coi or pov (which I keep admitting is intentionally trying to be neutral and consider quite literally all reliable sources from all related disciplines). Also as my MEDRS RfC has had some comment I'll try and add the hard science. Many people are sayiing that i'm working too fast. I am being WP:BOLD because I am not doctoring for 4 more weeks, and I wont have much time to contribute after that. E.3 (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia does not and should not provide spaces for untested quasi-scientific essays.--WaltCip (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * PLEASE do not change the title while the article is in AfD. David notMD (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - I had commented here on how content about ADHD would likely be off-topic for the article - leading to the renaming from "Digital dependencies and global mental health" to "Digital media use and mental health". This indicates that this is content in search of a place on Wikipedia, not an attempt to write an encyclopedia article about any fixed topic (more specifically, apparently Wikipedia should say somewhere that social media use may cause ADHD). The current title is uselessly vague. Neither is suitable for an encyclopedia. The content is a hodge-podge of factoids that might be relevant to the topic (or not) but are here assembled to push a certain POV. Huon (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I was not responding to you, I repetitively state that I am not trying to only consider adhd here, I am not, please trust me. I am responding to the above editor who suggested the title is the problem, the only super helpful suggestion so far, so I did it. I won’t do it again. This is not a POV. The sources as the other editor states are quite literally everywhere and most if not all are Medrs compliant, sociology wiki project allows discussion of medicine that is their job some of the time, so media sources of reputable people on the issue are allowed to be quoted both under medrs and it being a society and culture article. That is MEDRS policy through and through, what exactly breaks it now? I contend nothing. digital addict, many things. Deletion is not meant to be a form of cleanup. This is an attempt to not even consider my contributions, simply deleting the whole article. As I have RFCd it and they are happy for me only commenters are happy include psychiatry, I’ll do that in a bit. E.3 (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * if there is no further discussion around the RfCs or pointing out to me how this logic does not apply in regards to wiki project sociology and medrs, I’ll close the RfCs down, add the parts, and if further edit conflict that isn’t explained I’ll request binding arbitration thanks. I don’t want that, I want help, but no one has added real text to the articles since 2011, and only two helpful suggestions re content for such an important issue. —-E.3 (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Stong keep This is a good article although it may benefit from a title change.— Ineuw talk 03:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm adding it to how digital addict was sorted for more discussion, thanks for everyone so far!
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. E.3 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. E.3 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. E.3 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. E.3 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. E.3 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. E.3 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:NOTESSAY on a vague topic (indeed still after the title was changed during this AfD) and covers a lot of WP:SYNTH. I trimmed related article Social media addiction and after that, this article was created with the same problems and more due to even broader defined title. Also want to repeat what Huon said in their vote above. --Treetear (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like ill take it to arbitration if this continues. Two strong keeps, other biased editors, no help, no cleanup of the other articles at all. Something very dodgy is going on. Arbitration next step. E.3 (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have listed that I want arbitration with the two editors who do not discuss their deletions and repetitively call things synth when others do not. They have POV. This is a risky comment but because the 2011 editors contributions to social media addiction were deleted, in mine and others best guess after discussing with some of these experts I have cited, these deletions led to the deaths of hundreds or thousands of people. This is why I am taking this matter so seriously E.3 (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have my opinions on the talk page and the neutral article on the main page. Thats ok I understand. I listed it, but its not ready for arbitration, its a content dispute. Could editors please comment on the RfCs, preferably uninvolved, as as they said "there are some concerns about the conduct of some editors involved" E.3 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - No valid reason for deletion has been cited. There are legitimate editorial complaints that can be fixed by editing or even merging the article. We do not delete that which can be fixed. The topic is encyclopedic and it is notable.  Digital media is broader than social media. It includes gaming online and video streaming. Jehochman Talk 02:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * As explained on my talk page and my user page I have a mind that thinks quite abstractly and I misunderstand things. I just get very concerned about perceived bias, whilst acknowledging my own. I can write much better than I have here, I just have never attempted to write encyclopaedically and for me as a doctor 1+1=2, for me in the rest of my life 1+1=3. Thanks again everyone! Especially sorry about the pushback,  I mostly just cant understand some things you say despite trying, ill keep trying,  for effectively being my "otter" and to  for somehow managing to put it on my talk page just now in a way that I understand. E.3 (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep This article isn't just about people addicted to social interactions with digital devices, but also video games and whatnot which effects the developing brains of the young apparently. So a separate article makes sense.   D r e a m Focus  03:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - it appears to me that the two articles social media addiction and digital dependencies and global mental health (terrible title) have evolved to the point where they are separate topics with decent sourcing. I don't believe the notability of either topic is in question, which is really all that matters in an AFD discussion. This isn't a POV fork, it appears to be a valid topic that falls under the WP:SPINOFF or WP:RELART guidelines. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - what is the topic of the article? I can't tell. The lead section doesn't say. The title has changed since the article was nominated for deletion. I don't think those arguing to keep the page agree amongst themselves., , , , and , would you mind summarizing succinctly what, in your opinion, this page's topic is, maybe in a way that would be suitable as a first sentence? I think we can all agree that the current first sentence could do with improvement and does not suitably introduce or define the topic ("Digital media use has been complicated by digital media overuse, variously termed digital addictions or digital dependencies"; in fact, I'd stick a [Citation needed] on that sentence if the article is kept). For all those who have argued that this is a notable topic that deserves a stand-alone article, I might agree with you - if only I could tell what that topic is. Huon (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone moved the article while discussion was ongoing, disappointingly. It is currently named Digital media use and mental health. "This is an article about the effects of digital media use on mental health."  Seems like a reasonable and notable topic.  I have seen lots of articles about this. Everybody seems to use slightly different nomenclature so we have to have a separate discussion about the best name for the article, and whether to increase or decrease the scope, and whether to merge of spin off sub-topics.  There's a lot to decide.  Deletion is not a substitute for making editorial decisions.  Jehochman Talk 21:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So something like "Effects of digital media use on mental health" would be a better title, in your opinion? Does the article, in your opinion, cover that topic beyond what should be placed in social media addiction (which arguably might be considered a sub-topic), ie is there currently any content that couldn't be merged? I don't see much beyond the effects of social media on mental health, nothing beyond the addictive effects of social media use. I'll also note that there was a recent discussion on the talk page about whether journalism might be relevant in some way. Huon (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion sounds good. I would make the other article a child of this one. Place a summary here, and leave the bulk of content there. I'm not sure about journalism.  I haven't looked at that discussion. Jehochman Talk 23:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * it is meant to be the mother article of video game addiction social media addiction and internet addiction disorder. It is about all digital media and their effects on mental health from a societal perspective. I have a whole title discussion on the talk page. E.3 (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge. We have four articles on the same issue: Internet addiction disorder (created 29 May 2005); Social media addiction (created 24 May 2011); Digital addict (created 14 February 2014); and Digital media use and mental health (created 7 January 2019 as Digital dependencies and global mental health and moved on 13 January). The content should be merged into one article, perhaps called Internet addiction, Digital dependence or Digital dependency, where the social and medical aspects can be addressed in different subsections. SarahSV (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If the article becomes too long, presumably sections can be spun out as child articles. Jehochman Talk 19:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. SarahSV (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We're on the same page. First, merge to eliminate redundancy and combine related content.  Then break apart as needed to create articles of appropriate length and focus. Closing admin, this is what I want.  Merge is technically a "keep" type result. Jehochman Talk 21:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have tried to expand Digital media use and mental health to be broader than about addiction, although I support looking at merging the other articles. Digital media use and mental health now has content on digital media being used to help with mental health and on possible effects of non-addictive use. Bondegezou (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source that discusses this general topic without us engaging in synthesis? Which one? I'll also note that the original author argued above that this should be "the mother article of video game addiction social media addiction and internet addiction disorder", which to me indicates that, at least to him, "addiction" is a central aspect of the topic. Huon (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup to me this is the point. I think we should have the articles separate and improve as they stand. But at the moment it is such a high importance issue, its all encyclopedic, we can't have dodgy articles all over the place about it. I think because of the sex thing social media addiction should be separate to internet addiction, but internet addiction is excessively long and unreadable at present. Digital addict needs a merge I have tried to take all its usable parts here. Happy with any consensus. It works on other languages better than here. The reason being, as I have noted in citations, the word addiction itself causes major major conflict and disagreements amongst the experts. So if we change the tone and sort out the articles here, perhaps at best the experts will follow. E.3 (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But in answer to the question about a reliable article doing it as a general topic - medicine has not. Anthropology and sociology have for years. Thats why I consider anthropology and sociology should "mother" the medical articles. Because theyve been doing it for longer. The books are summarised, I've read them all. They all talk about it as a general societal topic. E.3 (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

OK so we have the social media addiction, internet addiction disorder, electronic media and sleep, video game addiction, screen time, mobile phone overuse, gaming disorder, digital addict and nomophobia all trying to take on this and associated topics. Because of the attention raised to this article, it is the most compliant. There seems to be consensus to me not to delete it, because this is the most thorough attempt at compliance with our policies so far. I suggest: 1. We don't delete, theres consensus around that I understand (Ish). 2. We consider this to be the mother article, I agree with that we can have good parts of tech in mental health in it so that it is neutral. But we do not want it overly vague. It must have medical expert opinion, I suggest at the very least Christiakis has to stay. 3. We then continue the discussion around the title, which is the hardest part of the whole article to develop consensus, for numerous reasons. 4. We keep social media addiction, internet addiction disorder and one of gaming disorder or video game addiction as daughter articles, cleaning up all and moving content to and or from this article. 5. For readability I think we should have the specialties separate in this article, and then link to the disorders in separate articles. Because each specialty fundamentally disagrees on how to broach the topic, only anthropology and sociology are roughly on the same page. Neuroscience is behind. Medicine is at war with each other. Psychology are stuck in the middle. 6. All useable points from screen time, mobile phone overuse, nomophobia, electronic media and sleep, and digital addict are Brought to this article in the coherent fashion involving the specialties or whatever else we decide. Then wiki might make a bit of sense on the issue. E.3 (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry theres even more. I put them all as proposed mergers to the page. The topic is all over the place on English wiki in my opinion. Sorry if I broke deletion guidelines about listing mergers, I'm not trying to get around deletion discussions, this is just a tough topic. I really think computer addiction is out of date in terms of the title of its terminology, and I'm a bit shocked by the presence of smartphone zombie. I placed that article in medicine's scope, gave it the only cite I could find that links the two, stated its not medical terminology on the page, and it needs WP:MEDRS compliant references if it is to stay, in my opinion. In my humble opinion, there is some good content on that page but the title needs to go, its highly offensive I suspect to many people. Any assistance with listing these highly complex merges with Wikiproject:Merge would be fantastic I can't work it out. Thanks again everyone. E.3 (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I brought the exact wording of usable points from smartphone zombie across and nominated it for deletion here. I did this because there is good content in this article, but in my opinion its presence will continue the moral panic around screen time. E.3 (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , please wait for one set of discussions to be completed before starting a whole bunch of related ones. Also, please don't start getting into more complex Wikipedia actions until you know what you are doing, or ask for some help. If you tag something as a suggested merge, you need to start a clear discussion on a Talk page explaining your suggestion. I've done that for you now. Your AfD for smartphone zombie has been done incorrectly. Hopefully someone will come along to fix it. Bondegezou (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Thats exactly what I'm doing, asking for help. Thanks for your help. E.3 (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And the reason for my actions today is because I am genuinely shocked that smartphone zombie exists on the most up to date, most read resource in the world on these topics. I didn't notice until today, but I am genuinely shocked. E.3 (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2019 (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.