Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-traumatic embitterment disorder


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Post-traumatic embitterment disorder

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All the sources about this appear to be directly linked to the same German psychiatrist, who's been harping on this for 10 years with apparently no luck persuading others. There's a single source relevant to the article that's not authored by him and it's a puff piece about him. The whole article, even if it's saved, needs a thorough clean out of all the stuff that's trying to make this "disorder" seem like a serious, widely supported thing rather than the pet project of one man with little research to back it up. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a classic case of WPOR, so delete. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, there are enough references for this to be notable, so no deletion indicated. Pubmed results: Google books results:  (link broken, just type in the phrase to google books). Deletion is not a substitute for improving the article. 188.29.95.225 (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are seven results on pubmed, and 5 of them have M Linden as a co-author. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 21:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge very selectively to Linden or as a second choice, Redirect or Delete.  WP:MEDRS warns that " Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content," and far too much of this content, which is in a medical context, is covered by this theory, we have no real secondary coverage of the topic, or is alternatively only covered by Linden. I don't believe that precludes a basic synopsis of the topic at Linden, however. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep. Deficiencies in the current article are not grounds for deletion. To quote the AfD admin instructions at WP:BEFORE:
 * "'''C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted
 * 1. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD."
 * If the topic's notability is in question, I agree with Tombomp that there are a lot of references that discuss the topic (google the term in quotes at scholar.google.com or books.google.com), including in dozens of journal articles written by a wide variety of authors. Not all the search results are reliable sources, but a good many of them seem to be. j⚛e decker's merge/redirect/delete opinion seems based on the sources currently cited, rather than the sources that could be cited to improve the article. And even within the current article, I don't really agree that much of the content "is in a medical context", though perhaps I'm wrong on that (pharmacological treatment of PTED is a medical topic, but is PTED itself a medical topic?). Agyle (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Moved to keep. You were correct, Agyle,   Gscholar provides sufficient sources to indicate notability..  I tend to consider physiological topics medical, but we can disagree on that and it doesn't really matter here, since your primary sourcing point is valid.  Linden is well-represented in the available sources (and probably over-represented in the tone of the text), but there is other support, as well as criticism out there (which should also be included in the article.) --j⚛e deckertalk 03:10, 15 May 2014 (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.