Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delayed grief


 * 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. Making sure this is not used for POV pushing can be resolved through editing the page. There was some talk of merging but there is not yet a clear consensus on that subject, discussion can continue on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Delayed grief

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A "spinnoff article coatrack" as indicated here. Some minor part could be merged into Grief, considering the removal of some OR and a non-RS blogsource. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, maybe merge some content and make it a redirect to Grief.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, you beat me to it; I concur entirely, especially as far as coatracking is concerned. Salvio giuliano (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Merge, as long as no surreptitious and unfounded association between delayed grief and Amanda Knox is made, the article can be useful. Salvio giuliano (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP. THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE IN MORE WIKIHOUNDING BY THE MAGNIFICENT CLEAN-KEEPER: It is not legitimate to engage in WikiHounding of others to try to prevent their ability to participate in other articles. You went to this stub article only AFTER Wikid directed ME to the article consistent with the WikiHounding that you, The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, engaged in with the Linda Carty article. Now you are following me here after Wikid directed me here on my Talk page. It is none of your business if he and I wish to collaborate on a new article. You are interested in this article only because he directed me to it. You were not interested in the subject matter otherwise, just as you were only interested in the Linda Carty article while I attempted to work on it-- but had to give up due to your WikiHounding. Stop following me around and WikiHounding me. ENOUGH! Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Do you know that this page (like any other) is not for personal attacks. And taking about hounding; Wasn't I the first one here? So who hounded down who and who is harassing who? Have a nice night.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Amost forgot to ask: Is Salvio hounding you too since he posted here?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Salvio did not follow me to the Linda Carty article and delete all of my work there repeatedly as you did. Salvio has not used profanity towards me or any other woman that I am aware of. Salvio has not harassed me by repeatedly deleting my work on the Kercher article. Salvio has not threatened to 'get rough' with me, as you did. So his pattern of conduct has been very different from yours. Given your pattern of conduct, your proposal to delete this article smacks of WikiHounding. Don't try to pretend that you ended up here just as a coincidence after Wikid offered this to me as consolation after you WikiHounded me on the Linda Carty article and drove me off. No, it is not a coincidence that you came here.Zlykinskyja (talk)


 * Uh. And how did you get there? Do you remember? I do. You got there from the same link I got there.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - not a WP:Coatrack - no coats on this rack. In claiming that the article is a "coat-rack" there should be documented proof that the article contains, or had contained, a series of "coats" being hung as tangent topics within the text of the article. There are no coats, no list of tangent concepts not related to the subject of delayed grief, and hence, this is a frivolous AfD delete request, wasting people's time. Also, I did not invent the article's topic: Google matches 18,400 for "Delayed grief" or Bing.com states "15,000,000 results" for Delayed grief, and Yahoo! Search shows 14,300 results (for "Delayed grief"). This was one of numerous common topics missing from Wikipedia: I have created hundreds of new articles, with dozens about common topics, and frivolous AfDs do not help. -Wikid77 04:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: I suggest reminding people who submit AfDs that they need to provide proof, at the outset, that the alleged fatal problem with an article really has merit. Otherwise, generating a frivolous AfD is an enormous waste of time and resources. Wikipedia does not condone an AfD against "Lightning rod" by merely claiming it is a total WP:BLP attack on Benjamin Franklin, unless there are specific points of evidence. Likewise, WP does not condone an AfD against "Upgrades to Windows Vista" by claiming it is a "coatrack" for whom, perhaps Buena Vista? The initiator of an AfD needs to specify the detailed proof that a policy is being violated, as to the specific details of that alleged violation, rather than just cite vague policy links as wiki-lawyering against an article. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment from author: I regret that this frivolous AfD has been submitted. I knew when I created the article "Delayed grief" that there was a high risk that it would be spotted in another user-talk page, then followed, and later attacked by people trying to limit the content of the article "Murder of Meredith Kercher". Perhaps the AfD against this article is a veiled form of censorship, and should be investigated as a extreme violation of WP:NOTCENSORED: deleting an article to limit the spread of unwanted sourced information. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge. The term "delayed grief" reveals many sources on the main Google search and on both Google Books and Google Scholar, so I would argue that deletion would be unmerited in this scenario. However, since the main Grief article is only about 21-22 kilobytes in size, considering WP:SPINOUT, the content from the "Delayed grief" article as it stands could be merged into that page, as the nominator suggests. The same could arguably be done in the cases of other articles in the "Grief" category, such as Anticipatory grief and Disenfranchised grief, or perhaps a separate "Types of grief" page could be created.  Super Mario  Man  04:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Further comment: It is premature to close down this article. It hasn't even gotten off the ground yet. This deletion is being proposed for illegitimate reasons by the person who started this thread, as noted above. This website should be about producing new and informative articles, not censorship. Zlykinskyja (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Further comment: it is quite patent that this article is merely a way of campaigning for Knox's innocence as noted by TMC-k, which is not allowed under wp policies. Salvio giuliano (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The diff that Magnificent Clean-Keeper provides above makes it clear that the Wikid77 intended this as an "overlooked subject" relating to the Knox/Sollecito case. I had never heard of "coatracking" but, having read WP:Coatrack, this is it. I vote to delete the article and merge any useful stuff into Grief. "Useful stuff" does not include the uncited speculation about the state of mind of Amanda Knox. Bluewave (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Incidentally, there was a previous discussion on Zlykinskyja's talk page in which Wikid77 proposed creating a spinoff article, also related to the Knox/Sollecito case. At that time, I made a suggestion that they sought consensus before creating such an article. However, my advice was deleted without comment or reply, so I have not commented further up til now. Bluewave (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no "uncited speculation" in the article. Every statement in the article is tied to a footnote source: I have been creating new articles for years, so I typically provide a ref-tag footnote for everything, far beyond the sourcing required by WP:Verify & WP:RS policies. In this case, I used multiple, independent sources. -Wikid77 12:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Further cmt in response to wikid77. The uncited speculation that I'm referring to is the implication that Amanda Knox was suffering from delayed grief. There is a cite that she was "sobbing uncontrollably" but that doesn't mean she was suffering from delayed grief. You would need to cite a psychiatric report for that, not a notorious tabloid like the Sun (newspaper) which doesn't even mention delayed grief. Bluewave (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: The diff provided by the Magnificent Clean-keeper is concerning, and the Amanda Knox case seems to have been a principal motivation for the creation of this article. The "Examples" section as it stands hinges mainly on the (unsourced) assertion that Knox and "delayed grief" are connected, when the only Google web search result that includes both of these phrases happens to be the article that is the subject of this deletion nomination. A search for "Amanda Knox" and "delayed grief" in Google News yields precisely zero results, making the Knox paragraph original research and synthesis. The rest of the article is above the level of a dictionary definition since it cites reliable sources, but on its own I would say that it is not enough to support a separate article when there is a prospective parent (Grief) into which it could be merged. While it is true that there is no deadline for article development on Wikipedia, the same essay proposes that there is no rush to create a new article "until its significance is unambiguously established." "Delayed grief" is a notable concept, but for the moment, on Wikipedia, it could just be included in a subsection on the main "Grief" article.  Super Mario  Man  14:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The term "delayed" is similar to "postponed" (or "grieving later"), so a search-engine lookup should focus on "grief" plus "later" or "afterward" and then you will find more sources. To view a report about someone "sobbing uncontrollably" (days after her friend was murdered) as an original-research view, of grief, is a bit misplaced: instead, to consider intense "sobbing" as NOT grief would be original. There is no WP:SYN synthesis in this case: numerous webpages address Amanda Knox with the word "grief" so it is not a "synthesized" opinion of her behavior. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect, the Amanda Knox paragraph collates two news sources (CBS and The Sun) and ends with the unspoken conclusion that Knox "sobbing uncontrollably" is an example of "delayed grief". A and B are therefore assumed to result in C, when there is no reliable source asserting that such a connection exists. The closest that one of the cited sources comes to supporting the assertion of "delayed grief" is the sentence in the Sun article stating, "[Sollecito] said Knox wept with grief and screamed: 'How could anyone do this?' However, effectively, it is Sollecito who is being cited, since the newspaper is simply reporting something that he said. The inclusion of the paragraph presupposes that Knox's behaviour was genuine and not a mask to divert the attention of the Italian police from her and Sollecito. Is there a source such as a medical journal in which Knox's conduct is specifically diagnosed as a case of "delayed grief"? The first sentence of the "Examples" section is strong in its sourcing, but rather undue prominence is allotted to the Knox paragraph while simultaneously there is no source explicitly bridging Knox and "delayed grief", or "grief" attached to synonymous adjectives such as "unresolved".  Super Mario  Man  18:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not rocket science: "sobbing uncontrollably" during a conversation, days after a death, is an example of "delayed grief". This is not a medical mystery requiring a blood test and a CAT scan. The 2nd source confirms the first, by saying "wept with grief" plus, it even uses the word grief (just in case anyone thought "sobbing uncontrollably" wasn't), and then adds that she screamed about the death. Now just because there are 2 sources, that doesn't imply WP:SYN (advancing a "cause"), but you even claimed a synthesis when there was only 1 source, combined together with what... "the sound of one hand clapping"? The 2 sources are actually both: (A) delayed grief in sobbing, plus (A) delayed "wept with grief" leading to A+A, as both delayed grief. I don't see any hint of A+B=C "advancing a cause" here. You indicated that Sollecito must have lied about the weeping (why?), and I guess the police chief lied about the sobbing, or the reporters lied about those 2 interviews, or the reliable sources lied in print. Therefore, condemning the sources, it would not be delayed grief. That's not how Wikipedia handles sources. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the policy, we must not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". There is no "explicit statement" in either source that Knox's "uncontrollable sobbing" was delayed grieving. The CBS source, besides the fact that it is highly biased against the Italian judiciary, has nothing to say specifically on "delayed grief" (the subject of the article). The Sun — again, not the most reliable source of information out there — makes mention of "grief", but (and this is attributed to Sollecito) does not qualify it with "delayed" or "unresolved". People should be misled: they should be left alone to consider whether the sobbing is indicative of this precise form of grief. At most, Knox's sobbing is "grief" according to what sources tell us, but what is there to refute that it was not an elaborate deception to dissuade the Italian police? This would appear to be a fundamental problem with the inclusion of the paragraph as an example. Perhaps Knox's behaviour exemplifies "grief" in general, but then the encyclopaedic worth of the edit is lost. If we are to include documented instances of "delayed grief", we must ensure that they are categorised as such in the sources cited. Also, regardless of the above, the re-insertion of the content would give undue weight to the Knox case, and would do little to refute the case made by the Magnificent Clean-keeper that this article was created as a coatrack. As the page stands, I view it as containing too little content to merit separation from the main Grief article, hence the reason for which I favour a merge.  Super Mario  Man  21:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Further Comment The accusation is being made by Salvio above that this article is somehow intended to present a positive POV view of Knox, yet the article has not yet even been written! (It is only a stub at this point.) So how can this be judged a "campaign for her innocence"! The converse could be argued: that some do not want this new article to go forward just in case it might present Knox in a light other than a bad light, as some are insisting on in the Kercher article. This is just more of the same old, same old, censorship by some of the same people on the Kercher article. I had just planned on starting this as a new writing project, when these other editors on the Kercher article try to delete it. Yet, I had not even had the chance to make a SINGLE EDIT. Sure looks like censorship to me, as in prior restraint. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It has been written and is (al)live, and being a stub doesn't change that. It is not a draft in user space or else. Further, you need to make your argument about policy as this is not a vote. To clarify, the article will be kept or deleted based on policy arguments, not on personal opinion.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Quote:"... I had not even had the chance to make a SINGLE EDIT yet ."


 * Wrong: You chose not to edit the article as of yet.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Further comment: May I suggest you read this? Salvio giuliano (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Further Comment: This proposed elimination needs to be considered in light of the policies against Censorship. Please review. wp: Censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs)


 * Just plain wrong again and repeating your "censorship" accusations all over WP doesn't change that. Please read policies you cite and also those you where directed to at your talk page and, again, all over WP so you can make a compelling argument.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if I can't write on the Kercher article without hours and hours of obstructions, and I can't write on the Linda Carty article since you followed me there too and repeatedly deleted my text, and now I can't write on this brand new article (as Wikid invited me to do) since you want it deleted before I could make a single edit, the pattern sure looks like a type of censorship to me, to put it mildly. Maybe there is another word for it, but the general gist is that if an editor is being obstructed in participating that is analogous to a form of censorship. I think the doctrine of prior restraint provides (as a general form of analogy between Wiki speech and free speech) some background on how speech can be restricted even before it is actually written, and thus becomes a form of censorship. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Even so this doesn't belong here but you keep bringing up things that don't belong here anyways ,I'll respond to your comment.
 * You can write at the article even if it is considered for deletion. It is even encouraged to do so to bring an article up to standard and then it might not be deleted.
 * Comments about editors are not encouraged but highly discouraged and don't belong here or on any article's talk page as you made aware more than once. There are forums on WP where you can do so as long they are not unfounded and you include diffs to back up your claims. Anything else is considered a personal attack.
 * As for the "free speech" issue you brought up you might want to read Free speech for further understanding.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would not waste even more of my time on these disputes with you, as you follow me around Wikipedia, by adding text to this brand new article. No one who values her time would add to an article that you and your allies from the Kercher article are proposing for deletion. What you are doing is unfortunate, because Delayed Grief as a phenomenon that is very little known and countless people could be helped with a well written, well researched article on the subject matter. When I lost a family member to the family illness as a teenager I did not cry for over a year, and could not understand why. It would have helped me a lot to have a readily accessible article to let me know there is an actual condition called Delayed Grief, which I had no idea about. So, now all those who are in need of similar information will not have it, thanks to your efforts. This is similar to what happened with Linda Carty, a woman who is facing the death penalty by lethal injection in a matter of months. I could have written a good article to inform the public of her desperate situation, but had to give up on her worthy story due to your WikiHounding of me there. No one wants to write when being WikiHounded, but you already know that. So to say I am "free" to write on this article while you try to get it deleted is utter nonsense. Zlykinskyja 19:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Big BS and enough of that. As I said before, this is NOT the right page for your rants and don't take me as an excuse NOT to edit certain articles. This is getting more and more ridiculous and I hope some admin steps in and stops that nonsense at least here! The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: As always, this is not the proper venue to debate merges, which should be done on a talk-page cross-linking both articles to allow authors of the other article to discuss impacts to their current text, as well. Perhaps remind people to start a talk-page debate based on merging, first, rather than generate a frivolous AfD disguising a merge proposal. Is there a current tag (such as "TRYMERGE") for templating these people, with an ambox-notice, to not submit frivolous AfDs for article contents they know, full well, are actually notable within an article? I'm thinking of something like the ambox-notice below:


 * That type of ambox-notice, above, should be developed into a template-tag to keep people from submitting frivolous AfDs. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoa, is this an AfD, or is this meatpuppetry? Erpert (let's talk about it) 11:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and delete  I think this warrants a section in the Grief article, but given the current amount of information, not an article on its own. I think the Amanda Knox example should be removed, as there is nothing in it (or in the references) to identify it as an actual diagnosed example of delayed grief, and so that seems to be WP:OR / WP:SYNTH (I have no idea whether or not it is coatracking, so I'm not trying to judge it on that - just on the content of the article as it stands) -- Boing!   said Zebedee  12:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't merge and delete. That would transfer authorship and violate GFDL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean. I've seen a number of AfD's closed with a "merge" consensus, like Articles for deletion/Campaign to Save Roan Plateau, which would lead to a second author copying a first author's words into the merge target, with the deletion of the merge source - how does that work without "transferring authorship"? -- Boing!   said Zebedee  17:52, 22 March 2010(UTC)


 * It is not about merging a longstanding article into another one; It's about deleting an article (that's what AFD stands for) and include some content in another article that already exists. Maybe TenPoundHammer should clarify what s/he means by "Can't merge and delete..." as it would mean no part of a deleted article could be merged, which is just not true.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Once the content of an article (I don't understand how the length of its standing matters) is merged into another one, surely the original is then deleted, and the two cases are the same, aren't they? Anyway, I agree, some clarification of what TenPoundHammer actually meant would help. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  18:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The only difference would be that when merging a longstanding article we might keep it as a redirect and therefore the edit history would be preserved, which in this case would have no value.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, that's a point - but if the GFDL requires keeping a record of past authors, wouldn't keeping it as a redirect in this case at least satisfy that? (which could mean that it is just the "and delete" part of my recommendation that TPH believes is wrong) -- Boing!   said Zebedee  19:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I sure wouldn't mind but I doubt that any reader would search using that phrase. Anyhow, that would then need to be addressed at WP:RFD.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that in my my "vote" as the nominator of this AFD I said:"...maybe merge some content and make it a redirect."--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I've changed my !vote to just "Merge" - should that be the consensus, whoever does it can work out the proper way. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  23:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable per Google Book search results which have significant coverage of "delayed grief" in multiple reliable and independent sources. See, , , , , , , and many more. In addition, there are many journal articles found at Google scholar which address this topic: . Edison (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Any reason why this subject shouldn't (or can't) be addressed in Grief?---The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A topic which has a great many scholarly references is deserving of its own article. This is the same reason World War 2 isn't merged to War. Edison (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is highly notable, as evidenced by others. Any issues with the article may be addressed by ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy.  If I were to edit it, I might add the example of Richard Feynman, who experienced delayed grief after the death of his first wife.  Giving this example would not make the article a coatrack; it would just be an  illustration of the concept. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Further Comment By Proposed Author: Please keep in mind that this article has not been written yet. Wikid77 started the article on March 19, and on the same day, The Magnificent Clean-Keeper proposed the article for deletion. (There has been an ongoing dispute in another article involving some of the same authors initiating or supporting this move to stop the new article). This new article has barely gotten off the ground. As a proposed author, (as Wikid77 and I discussed on my Talk page) I did not yet even have the opportunity to make a single edit prior to this deletion proposal. As one of the two people who had intended to do the work in writing this new article, I completely agree with Edison and Colonel Warden. It is indeed a highly notable topic. It is also a topic that is complex and needs detailed presentation to adequately inform and educate the reader. I think Edison hit the nail on the head when he made the analogy to why World War 2 wasn't merged into the article on War. Some topics need enough room for full explanation. There is no need to cramp the topic into the article on Grief. That will not do it justice. As one of the two people who had intended to write this article, I am not interested in a "merge." For me to be enthused about the topic and actually write it, I need enough space to feel confident that I can do the topic justice. If the only space I can use is in connection with a "merge" I probably will not be interested in going forward and actually writing the article. So for all practical purposes, the result of the vote is to either allow the article to go forward, or stop it in its tracks now. I am not interested in spending the time in reviewing all the scholarly research, only to have my work squeezed into another article when I am done. The seminal research treatise on Death and Dying by Kubler-Ross covers difficulties with grief and is quite long and detailed. For that type of research full space is needed and will be available by simply allowing a new article to proceed and explain this complex phenomenon in detail. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm neutral about whether the article should be kept or deleted, but your comment above makes me wonder if you really understand how Wikipedia works. I understand you put a lot of work into the article, but that alone isn't enough for it to be kept. You also should understand that even though you created the article, it isn't yours. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My comment was that I have put NO work into the article because I never had that chance. Not even a single edit. The opening of the article page and the proposal to delete were made just hours apart, before I ever had a chance to even start writing. So my point is just the opposite. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do people realize that the proposal to delete was submitted just hours after the article had been originated, and that one of the two authors intending to write the article had not yet even made one edit yet? This proposal to delete is as premature as it can get.Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily; WP:DEADLINE works both ways. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Any concept of "deadline" needs to consider that people need more than just a few hours to start, develop and expand the article. There is no need to be a speed demon. There is no house on fire that I am aware of. Here is another point to consider: Don't demolish the house while it is still being built. It simply is not possible to get the whole thing done in just a few hours!!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built Please consider the points in this article. It is great! Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Don't have much time but will take some to explain some things to Zlykinskyja and those who favor "keep". Anyone, including Zlykinskyja had by now more than three days to edit that article to bring it up to a decent standard to stay as a stand alone article and therefore prevent deletion and redirecting it to Grief, yet, nobody chose to do so. Why? The first thing to do for those who want to keep it would be to start a Delayed grief section at the Grief article which can be split into it's own article at some point when it gets to big for the main one; Or it has no bearing at all at the main article and has to be seen as a different issue. Does it? I don't think so and made it clear by nominating it. Please also read my follow comments whithnin this AFD where I made it clear that the subject itself is not the issue and I would prefer a redirect for now. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge. Grief would benefit from having this merged in, and broader topic would help readers contextualize the specific one.  The page should be kept and redirected, as it's a reasonable search term.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 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.