Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Textaholism


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 04:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

SMS addiction (ne&eacute; Textaholism)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is nothing more than a dictionary definition of a neologism. Perhaps it should be transwikied to wiktionary? Bensci54 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * yes, the first sentence is nothing but a dictionary definition of a neologism. that's an astute observation. now if you continue reading you'll notice that there is actually an article here that follows including several points that have no place in a dictionary. that's why we have encyclopedias. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewax (talk • contribs) 02:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - I'm sure this could be turned into a decent article, but as of now the citations are terrible and the content and grammar are even worse. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * that's a shame --Mikewax (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * An article sourced to Urban Dictionary, YouTube, MTV, and Yahoo Answers isn't exactly a paragon of reliable content. This bad sourcing is no doubt caused by the use of the wrong name for the subject.  Its actual name, from which one will find proper literature on the subject, is SMS addiction. Uncle G (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * thats a good point but when i put up the same article with the title SMS adiction it was immediately deleted. --Mikewax (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's because you didn't use the page rename tool, as you should have done. Uncle G (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete no RS. Arbitrary distinctions of what determines this "condition". OR. -Drdisque (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Poor article! I could find no concrete evidence that this condition exists. Colinwhitehouse (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2013 (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.