Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Work aversion disorder (2nd nomination)


 * 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. I agree the original name was not a good choice, and the initial impression the article gave was not very positive. But the consensus after the name change was clearly to keep    DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Work aversion disorder
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Original research. "Work aversion disorder" as a concept does not exist in any reliable sources. Google scholar comes up empty. Web site devoted to supposed disorder is now defunct. I suspect it was owned by the same person who authored this. As a disclosure, I removed many references that merely mentioned the words "aversion to work" in various unrelated contexts. Suspect that was just window dressing as a result of the previous AfD to make the concept appear notable. Gigs (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC) verifiable]] information. It has been covered even in ancient sources. I can see rewriting the article about work aversion (not disorder), then including a section on disorders that may lead to work aversion. Pink cloudy sky (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - while "Work aversion" has some cites, this can not even be verified. The last AfD has no consensus, but I hope we can get to some decision now. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Laziness isn't a disorder. If it is, I need therapy, but I'm too lazy for that. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above (GregJackP (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC))
 * REDIRECT, Delete Keep Per the work done Hellno2. Beach drifter (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename back to "Work Aversion." This was the original title of the article, and it was properly sourced back then. Someone along the way changed it to "Work Aversion Disorder," and that's where everything went wrong. I returned these references; they should stay here for now. Hellno2 (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * From WP:NEO "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term." Sources that merely use the phrase "work aversion" do not constitute coverage, and shouldn't be cited as sources in the way that you did. Gigs (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NEO is strictly about neologisms. This article is NOT about a neologism. It is about a concept, so therefore, WP:NEO does not apply here.
 * Please note that the nom has renamed the essay linked and used to justify its deletion from "Bombardment" to "Window dressing." The nom is trying to imply deception, but this actually seems deceptive to me the way this was done. The nom's rationales are this, zero WP:GHITS (not considered a valid reason for deletion), and WP:OR, which per WP:PROBLEM can be cleaned up. Meanwhile, all the "deletes" here seem to be a debate that this is the same as laziness or just hope to reach a consensus. They do not really give a good reason for deleting. The "keeps" actually give good arguments and try to show where actual information on the concept can be found (see WP:PROVEIT). Hellno2 (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is pure original research and synthesis. It's a common phrase that doesn't exist as a distinct concept of its own outside of Wikipedia.  Those are fine reasons for deleting.  We don't make up new concepts and then write articles about them. Gigs (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Reasons for deletion, an article is not deleted if it has some problems that can be cleaned up. I know you feel this is purely synthesis, but it is only partially. This is surely a surmountable problem. Hellno2 (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep : Sorry, it was me who renamed it. I did so because of a page on something called Work Aversion Disorder. Work aversion (not disorder) is a notable concept with plenty of [[WP: V|
 * Keep: As others have mentioned, Work Aversion Disorder may not be notable. But the concept of Work Aversion is. In fact, there are entire articles and sections of books on it. This page should be renamed to the original title or to Aversion to work. From there, the OR can be cleaned up. Sources using the words "Work Aversion" can be found here and here. Sources using the term "aversion to work" can be found here and here. Tatterfly (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merely using the phrase is not coverage of the phrase as a distinct concept and does not establish notability. Gigs (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are plenty of sources about this, just under a different name. Dew Kane (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have made some changes to this article to remove OR and synthesis, and to add material from multiple sources that directly reflects what the sources contain about the concept. I have also renamed the article back to its original title. I have not made all the changes necessary yet; this may take a lot of time, due to the length of this article. The bottom line: Per WP:BATHWATER, I do believe this article is salvageable. Hellno2 (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is the synthesis. You can't edit that out of the article, it's fundamentally flawed.    Gigs (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: as per rename and continue to improve. Well done Hellno2. Fanx (talk) 10:20, 16 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.