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

'''when it comes to medicine related, high impact emerging phenomena, it can be unhelpful to adopt an overly strict application of MEDRS. At least in cases where most sources treat the phenomena as a social problem rather than strictly a medical condition.''' - This editor said it best in my opinion. Thanks very very much FeydHuxtable! E.3 (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC) Hopefully there is some more science added now which is in scope of Wikiproject sociology and I am considering the above logic too and the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Digital_dependencies_and_their_correlates. Thanks 05:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Apologies for me copying the psychiatry component to social media addiction in violation of deletion policy guidelines by accident happy for any editor to change or revert that as appropriate. E.3 (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules&oldid=11106100
 * Ignore all rules

It is impossible to improve this article with complete MEDRS compliance because we all read it slightly differently anyway. Expert opinion must be in. We already have both points of view, I'll try to find more but I'm worried involved editors will just continue to delete delete delete. When they say addiction, we quote them saying addiction. Use, use. when they say its nothing, nothing. Overuse, overuse. dependence, dependence. Use their words. that is NOT synth. but this is TOP importance in many portals. We are ignoring the fifth pillar. And also MEDRS is perfectly fine in my reading of it. I do not own this article. I just have had no text additions. The 2011 editor does not edit wikipedia any more. I suspect because he needed someone to remind him of the fifth pillar. E.3 (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * having said that, I have very carefully followed MEDRS, SYNTH, NPOV, due and undue weight, tried to avoid false balance, and have quoted the most reputable people in the world. The rules are almost perfect. But we must ignore them when they are in conflict - we cannot fix the experts linguistics. We comment on it. We do not engage in the debate, we comment on the debate. This is very very very notable. E.3 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)