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 Delete --JForget 23:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a trivial little Psychology stub of no scientific value, bordering on nonsense, which is better placed on Uncyclopedia Anonymaus (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is pointless. My first impression is that it just seems to be repeating what's already been written about OCD, but in a far less scientific manner. Bettia(talk) 13:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally unsourced, and smacks of WP:OR, especially with its arbitrary list. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 13:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is there any type of obsession that isn't mental? Unnecessary article that reveals that "Some examples of what people can be obsessed with are: drugs, alocohol, music, coffee, gambling, celebrities, health/fitness, royalty, money, religion, love, fame, cleanliness, diamonds, series, people, colour, shape or pattern, film, etc." Mandsford (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verifiability and some original theory. Article is 2.5 years old and has zero sources. Artene50 (talk) 03:56, 18 June 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.