Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smartphone zombies

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. Discussions for renaming or merging the article can be held on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 00:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smartphone zombies

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable neologism. Insufficient material to merge anywhere, and unlikely entry point for use as redirect. Fiddle Faddle 12:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "...so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question". I say this because the article contains lots of material supported by reasonable sources such as Japan’s smartphone ‘zombies’ turn urban areas into human pinball and so the nomination's claim that there is "insufficient material to merge anywhere" seems quite mistaken. It may be that we have other pages under other titles for similar or related topics but our editing policy is to consolidate this material, not to delete it. Andrew D. (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Mobile phone overuse, as had been suggested by @Swpb: on Nov. 10 until the template was removed shortly after by @Andrew Davidson:. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That merge discussion didn't get going and is redundant to this discussion. AFD takes priority because its template should not be removed without a formal close. There's no such restriction for the other templates and the point of my general rewrite was to remove clutter as it seemed the nominator hadn't got past this. Andrew D. (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. No, the merge doesn't require a formal close to remove, though it does require consensus, I believe. I'll remove it with an explanation this time on the edit summary and Talk page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Defense for the original article. Firstly, the original article is more focusing on the group of people who always use their smartphones, but not the phenomena of mobilephones overuse. Typically, the original article is written about the people ,totally differnt from the such a phenomena,for example the impacts of the smartphone zombies, is talking about the Mobile phone overuse, the authors will add the influence of physical health.However, the original article concentrates to the the impact of a specific group of people. Secondly, as for the problem that the word is not heated enough, the reference mostly were edited in 2014 to 2015, that is to say, recently, more and more people begin to pay attention to such group of persons, and do some reseaches and analysis to them.Thirdly, rewritten version is not detailed enough because it lacks lots of information about smartphone zombies, which is quite different from the original one. Ccmsharma2 (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a serious topic. It's getting coverage, it's influencing civic planning. It's different from overuse in general as it's about overuse in one context (intensive but often brief), rather than the long term or isolation issues. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keeping content: This topic is unquestionably notable. Like the development of the selfie article in 2013, we are tracking a trend where the title of an article can be up for dispute. I was not familiar with the phrase "smartphone zombie", but I can it has been used in the press. A merger discussion can be had separately.--Milowent • ^{typed this from his iphonewhilst crossing the street ... ack} 14:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afds often discuss merging, I'm my experience, and with the removal of the merge tag I think we need to discuss it now. I'm certainly not in favour of 'removing the the content.' And I can't see why the content can't reside in a section of the Mobile phone overuse, whose lead does encompass the sort of behaviour addressed here. As for the "zombie" meme, which is used in a couple of the refs, news editors have a fondness for catchy silly terms that'll attract readers, and goodness knows, anything zombie will do. These poor souls are of course not "zombies," they're simply users displaying aspects of mobile phone overuse behaviour, and I don't see a need for a content fork right now. I don't intend to change my !vote at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn, I probably am in favor of a merge too, but that usually only works in an AfD with strong consensus.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In Switzerland was just published a research by the University of Zurich, confirming the psychological problems arising with the overuse of smartphone.Alex2006 (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in fact this is a likely entry point, since it's used in newspaper headlines. Renaming or merging can be discussed on the talk page or whereever. Siuenti (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just chime in one last time to point out that WP:POVNAME advises us to use non-trendy neutral names for article titles. I've already stated at the aborted merge discussion that I think this should be merged -- leaving behind a redirect as an entry point -- to the neutrally named main article, so that's it for me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - SNOW. Folks, please don't waste everyone's time initiating an AfD within 24hrs of article creation on a topic that has obvious Google hits. -- GreenC 16:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Noting that the reason for many of the keep rationales being pretty poor is because there's a notable concept we do not already have an article about (I just looked pretty hard and didn't come up with anything satisfactory) hiding behind this non-notable neologism. It's probably going to be kept, and I wouldn't disagree with that, but the keep should be immediately followed by a discussion of the proper way to frame the notable subject. To have an article called "Smartphone zombies", there should be a whole bunch of very good sources (e.g. academic papers) which come to a consensus on that term -- and I seriously doubt that's the case -- or otherwise use only sources that talk about "smartphone zombies". Taking what some people call "smartphone zombies" and seeing similar meanings in sources about different terms would rely too much on original research to make that connection. Best would be a descriptive article title. How about a Keep and Rename/Refocus as Pedestrian mobile phone use, Mobile phones and walking, or to get a little more specific Texting while walking? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:38, 13 November 2015 (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.