Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sensory overload

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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sensory overload (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article low on content, with little signs of improvement over time, as well as only being notable in very specific circumstances. --Pichu0102 (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per WP:SK: "fails to advance an argument for deletion". Andrew (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its a real thing, and thus gets coverage in medical studies, government webpages, and medical publications. Google search for it at sites that end with *.gov and you'll find some good results to lok through. [1] You can search for *.edu as well if you need to find more. Dream Focus 23:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a cursory glance at the search results, the term mainly pops up in the contexts of schizophrenia or ADHD, and the clippings don't make it seem to be all that clear that it is an agreed upon term. Furthermore, the links to this article are sparse, and seem to be mainly from more specific articles already. My apologies if I am in error on this matter or if you disagree with me or my nomination. --Pichu0102 (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • [2], [3], [4], etc. define it. Need to find an official medical textbook to look it up in though. Is there a doctor in the house? Dream Focus 04:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it certainly needs TLC and some serious editing, but this is clearly a notable topic, and probably is not a candidate for WP:TNT. The fact that it's difficult to define is not a reason to delete; I can recall several times we have kept articles precisely because they were difficult to define - in a few cases they have ended up as dab pages. For examples, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sisu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velleity, etc. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perhaps there has been some confusion? It is widely used, as can be more clearly seen in the Google Scholar results. I think the misunderstanding may have come from the fact that it is SO well-known that it has entered pop psychology, and so is often MIS-used. Anarchangel (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2014 (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.