Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smilorexia

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 redirect to Cosmetic dentistry. MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smilorexia

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

Not notable Natureium (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at WT:MED. —Paleo Neonate – 08:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable neologism. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cosmetic dentistry. Some information about why people undergo non-functional dental procedures would be appropriate for that article. ==Motivations== would probably be a reasonable subject heading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is a book advertisement hiding under a pop culture neologism. Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WAID's rational.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term appears to have only been used by the author of or in connection with the book mentioned. The lack of coverage in other contexts casts significant doubt on the subject's notability. Commander Spock (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Half a sentence does not a book advertisment make. If the advertising is so undercover I can't see it its a poor ad. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:03, 17 October 2017 (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.