Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Work aversion (4th 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. No one outside of the nominator has called for the article's deletion, and the majority of the consensus favors keeping the article; BDD's point that the subject is the topic of scholarly literature is the strongest for keeping it here. The one call for a redirect is an intelligent suggestion, and perhaps it can be brought up on the article's talk page (considering that repeated calls for deletion haven't worked). A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Work aversion

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was originally created to describe something called "Work Aversion Disorder", which is not a recognized disorder. After it was challenged at AfD, it morphed into a general article on a supposed phenomenon of "work aversion", and was kept on what I consider weak grounds. It is not difficult to find a scattering of sources using the phrase "work aversion" or "aversion to work", but they largely are just using it as a descriptive phrase with the common English meaning, not as a term of art. When searching for sources, note that the original version of this article, or variations of it, are found on many "low quality search keyword content" sites, such as [1], and since such sources are derived from the original Wikipedia article, they should not be considered evidence of notability. Gigs (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Weak keep, but I could be sold on TNT, too. There are real sources for work aversion, including scholarly discussion of the topic from economic, sociological, and psychiatric perspectives (I've got references from Journal of Economic Issues, Social Forces, and Psychopharmacology). But none of that has to do with "Work Aversion Disorder", and the fact that the article as it stands is still married to that legacy makes the odds of substantive improvement seem foreboding. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- You do point out a solid argument for blowing it up and possibly starting over. I and a couple other editors have made little edits to remove the more outrageous claims and bad refs over the 3 years since the last AfD, but every time I load the page, I really get stuck on how it could possibly be brought up to any reasonable standard without basically gutting the article, an act that would probably be considered bad faith since I've advocated deletion in the past and failed. I still have serious doubts that this is a distinct enough topic for a standalone article, but I can envision that one could be created if it truly is something that is defined as a distinct symptom or phenomenon within an accepted field of study. If this AfD closes delete, I would not be opposed to the recreation of a more scholarly treatment of the topic that started over from scratch, if you can find sources to support such a thing. If it closes keep, I urge you or any neutral editor to make the drastic edits necessary to rid this article of it's protologism "disorder" roots. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sloth (deadly sin), which seems to be what it's describing. I understand what S.O. is saying, but I think it might be better to work that information into proper medical articles, such as mood disorder, major depressive disorder, passive-aggressive behavior, etc. Although I can see how a credible article could be written under this title, it would constantly be straining against the Puritanical bias inherent in the title. Lack of motivation, defeatism, and anxiety are common symptoms to many mood disorders, and there's plenty to say about their sociological and psychological effects. However, talking about them in terms of how unproductive they make worker drones and disrupt the nature order of the universe just doesn't seem very encyclopedic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a great article, but it's discussing a real concept that's discussed in scholarly literature. That it's not widely recognized as a disorder is no reason to delete, given the coverage of the topic. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The subject is real" isn't a very strong reason to keep either. Obviously "pain aversion" is a real thing, but we don't have an article on that, and probably shouldn't. You could write articles on "<anything negative> aversion" under that logic. Gigs (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're focusing on the wrong part of my comment. The article should be kept not (primarily) because it covers a real concept, but because that concept has been discussed in multiple scholarly sources. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sounds like a variety of presenteeism. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2013 (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.