Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Work aversion (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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.  Sandstein  05:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work aversion

edit

I closed this afd, the previous one ended 6 days ago. Ariel. (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Reverted improper (and incomplete) non-admin closure Gigs (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Work_aversion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)
  • This article does not meet the notability guideline and should be deleted. "Work Aversion" is not listed as a disorder in the DSM-IV nor is is listed as a symptom of any disorder. Many different people are adverse to many different things - I myself have a broccoli aversion - it does not warrant an encyclopedia article.Poorfriendme (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The concept of "work aversion" does not particularly exist as a distinct phenomenon. The topic itself is a synthesis of various sources (as well as most of the content). Gigs (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Much of the information in this article is verifiable, not as synthesis, but exactly as the sources say. I already changed the title back to its old one. It is not a disorder, obviously not in DSM-IV. But that's not what this article is about. It does not cleanup. I agree about that. But I feel there is no deadline to do that. The previous afd was just closed less than a week ago and I haven't had much time to yet. Regardless, it seems that the nominator here did not see WP:BEFORE, which requires that an article be cleaned up as opposed to proposed for deletion. Hellno2 (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • also . . . as someone mentioned below, the nom appears be a single purpose account for this deletion. I have just opened a sock-puppet investigation as a result of these suspicions. It seems awfully strange that less than a week after this was closed as an overwhelming keep, that it would be proposed for deletion again, and User:Gigs is the only one who seems to be obsessively trying to say it should be deleted (rather than just making a fly-by comment). Hellno2 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AGF does not have to be 100% of the time, especially when there is not good faith (see WP:IAR). I have evidence that Gigs dislikes this article in particular. You can find it here where he actually rants about it. He just wants to get rid of it. Meanwhile, there are other people who wish to fix the surmountable problems this article has. Per WP:PROBLEM, there is no deadline for doing so. Reproposing it for deletion in less than a week when there was an overwhelming consensus to keep is disruptive. Hellno2 (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6 to 4 with a mid-AfD rename is not "overwhelming consensus to keep". I dislike it because it is a blatant violation of several major Wikipedia policies. Poorfriendme probably did not realize it had been so recently nominated, and it seems they did so in good faith. Gigs (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are plenty of sources on the topic, going all the way back to ancient times and up until now. This may not be listed in the DSM, but that is not required by the general notability guideline. Tatterfly (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's useful, and referenced. Ariel. (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Just survived an afd less than a week ago by a 2:1 margin. Improvements have been made since. Nom appears this time appears to be a single-purpose account for this proposal. Could possibly be a sock puppet of the previous nom, who happens to be the first to comment here, as the only delete so far. Dew Kane (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Block nominator as vexatious SPA. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator is probably 69.86.106.167, who had commented on the talk page just prior to this nomination, and appears to be acting in good faith. It's not surprising that random people happening upon this pile of crap will want to delete it. It's a disgrace to Wikipedia. Gigs (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Anyone commenting on this AfD should actually take the time to look at the "sources" and how they are used. The author of this "article" has simply linked to every occurrence of the phrase "aversion to work". Gigs (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Gigs (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Gigs (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and ask the keep voters to actually look at the sources. Most of them are simply "places where the phrase work aversion has been mentioned", not "places where the phrase work aversion has been mentioned... as a distinct phenomenon". Ironholds (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTOPINION, WP:COATRACK. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, and the article's sources don't cover the subject in any detail. Although the page's title was changed, with sections like Causes, Complications, and Treatment, it's obviously a coatrack article for the imaginary "work aversion disorder". I still don't find descriptions like "the term work aversion does not refer to immature teens or young adults who "slack off"" in any way encyclopedic, and most of my arguments from WP:Articles for deletion/Work aversion disorder still apply. — Rankiri (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep looking at the sources, they do cover work aversion as a concept. This article should definitely be kept. 2/3 wanted it kept in the last nomination, and given that it was renominated so soon after, probably by a sock of the previous one, it all looks in bad faith. Pink cloudy sky (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This "probably by a sock of the previous one" meme needs to be shut down, now. It's in bad faith, unsupported by anything, and deeply unfair to both the nominator of this AFD, and the previous one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. Concept seems to be notable in academic literature (article cites ex. Rosen P (1988). "Dumping or work aversion? and Rosen P, Markovchick V, Wolfe R (Jan 1989). "Academic productivity or petulant work aversion?" - I don't see them being debunked in arguments above; also see: this book). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Academic productivity or petulant work aversion" is classified as an editorial in pubmed, and was written by an ER doctor. I can't access the full text, but I highly suspect that it does not support the claim it is being used as a citation for. "Dumping or work aversion?" is likewise classified as an editorial, again, written by an ER doctor. "Dumping" surely refers to "patient dumping" so the work aversion in question would be referring to an ER staff trying to lighten their patient load, irrelevant to the subject of this article. The book you linked to is apparently a satirical autobiography, the title is intended as self deprecating humor. [1]. If you'd like any more of the supposed sources debunked, please let me know. Gigs (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks :) I cannot access those articles to verify the information, unfortunately; without being able to read them, I think AGF should require us to treat them as valid (but I agree two editorials don't make a concept encyclopedic). I do note that there are no other works using this phrase in titles, but there is a bunch of articles using this term: [2]. I would still like to give the creator and the article benefit of the doubt, as the concept seems encyclopedic, but I have to admit the sources are relatively scarce, and we really could use one source which clearly defines this as a concept. I am changing my vote to "weak keep" for now (I justify my keep as the concept does appear to be used in some academic works). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep in mind too that multiple names may be used, but some of the sources found in this article do indeed describe the topic of Work Aversion as this article describes. Some of them may not use that exact term, but they do indeed describe the concept, and are article solely devoted to that purpose. Plus there are some books that describe it. Some use the term "aversion to work." Some do not use either term at all, but still describe the concept. Nevertheless, they are enough to allow for inclusion without being OR, SYNTH, or the like. Hellno2 (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete What good content there is on this page is swamped by unsourced, WP:OR-laden content which does nothing to help the encyclopedia. Complete removal of everything unsourced or dubiously sourced would create a barely passable stub, but the article history shows that this would not be accepted so I have no choice but to support deletion. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, but the history shows that attempts to remove unsourced content have always been reverted [3], or has led to citations that don't support the text being reinserted in an attempt to show that it isn't OR [4]. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have to say that the arguments in favor of keeping sound a lot more reasonable. They seem to demonstrate the validity of the concept. But I am highly offended by all the sock puppet accusations. In case you do not know, I have made perhaps thousands of contributions to Wikipedia over the years under numerous IP addresses. But I do not use an account for them because of my difficulty in remembering passwords. Occasionally, I have created an account just to create an article and used it just that one time. But I soon forget the name of both the account and the password. Yes, these are single purpose accounts I create. But I do it all in good faith. I'm sure there are many other memory impaired users just like me. Wikipedia allows editing without an account for a good reason. I have trouble enough using email because of my problem. As one who strongly believes in assuming good faith, I disagree with deletion but I do understand the reasons behind creation of an account for deletion. 166.216.130.86 (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC) — 166.216.130.86 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep A natural companion to this article appears to the workaholic article (which has survived one AfD), and this article is far better sourced (and I did peruse the sources, and most of them include more than a passing mention of the term alone). Of course there is room for improvement, and I think the authors have made great strides in that direction and should be allowed to keep working on it. Verkhovensky (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Work_aversion_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1089915224"