Deletion of Nagging

Comment: The recent http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nagging&action=historysubmit&diff=403439580&oldid=403434332 removal of references by Andy was completely against policy and had nothing to do with the expressed policy of  stated in the edit summary, which only applies to external links and not to references used in an article. Thus, Malleus Fatuorum was completely correct in reverting him. I believe Andy should take a look at  and please not try and remove references/information from the article again
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:External links (WP:ELREG||WP:PAYWALL)

Comment: a |disparate scattering of uses of a term (and in one case, ''non-use'' of the term) demonstrates neither notability nor that the topic is a fit subject for an encyclopaedic article. You could as easily come up with such a grab-bag of sources for an ''article'' (''NOT'' a disambiguation page, Colonel Warden) on People in history named Robert, Brown dog, Things that smell like strawberries, or who knows what else. As  states: ''"As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:IINFO)

Comment: or redirect to Wiktionary per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)

Comment: per .  The article can be and has been rescued with the addition of |more reliable sources from scholarship on alcohol abuse and related topics.  Thanks to Colonel Warden
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:RS)

Comment: thinking about it, Nagging should probably be a disambiguation page between an article on something like Dysfunctional social behaviour (or any other ''more encyclopaedic'' topic covering 'nagging somebody') and Anxiety ('nagging doubts', 'nagging question', 'nagging sense of..."). The unforeseen consequences of attempting to 'rescue' a 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICTDEF)

Comment: Nothing more than a definition. An uncited definition. And examples. But only examples of the ''idea'' (with no ref actually using the topic-term for it) not of the term itself. So... analysis of a , and I don't see a direction that it could expand to contain any more than cited material that would be part of a wikt entry
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:DICTDEF)