Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer rage
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 23:02, 15 March 2023 (Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (1x)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 23:02, 15 March 2023 by Legobot (talk | contribs) (Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (1x))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. John254 02:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Computer rage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article based completely on original research; orphaned; does not seem to be notable of inclusion and lacks sufficient content to identify it as encyclopedic. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 07:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – At first, I was going to agree with the deletion. However, after a quick News search, I was surprised at the number of articles addressing this psychosis, as provided here [1] In addition, I found more than a few Scholarly works dealing with the subject as noted here [2]. The article can certainly be expanded and referenced and if that is the case, it should be kept. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is in fairly common usage. road rage and the like have articles, and the coverage and usage of this seems to be comparable. Can be expanded, will not fail WP:N, and should not be excluded under WP:NEO. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It needs inline sources, links, and stub status, but these problems don't make it OR. The term is in familiar usage. LH (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2008 (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.