Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethical stress

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 delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethical stress

This article is nebulous and I'm not sure it says anything. To boil it down: Ethical stress is stress from ethical problems. That seems to make "ethical stress" more a poetical term than anything. Solving problems about what is good or bad is called simply "ethics". Stress undergone from that is "stress". It does not explain how ethical stress is an exclusive type of stress, nor why ethical stress cannot be medicated, only that it can't. The article goes on to say, indirectly, that "ethical stress" is the tension of conflicting views one must have to support his well being. I think this is called cognition. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel this makes the article redundant and an abstract medley of concepts jumbled together. It also lacks sources. For these reasons I submitted it for deletion. Bordello 01:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Reeks of original research. Crabapplecove 01:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It is tearing me up inside to have to vote this way. --Xrblsnggt 04:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Whether or not the article contains some original research--my question is, is "ethical stress" a specific concept supported by multiple researchers? Looking at some searches, it appears not. Rather, it is one form of stress, like employment stress or poverty stress or... Outriggr 04:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. OR. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Not because I don't think it deserves an entry, but because it's survived for a year without significant improvement. A google search returns over 500 results, some of which are reputable media entries, and a search of GoogleScholar returns 33 results. This is weak evidence of notability in my opinion, but I'm not convinced that the WP entry for the phrase is accurate. The main subset of entries seems to be in two areas, theology and economics. If I thought there was someone shepherding this article I would change my vote to Weak Keep.--Anchoress 06:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep just because it doenst have a million pages on google doesnt mean its not notable, how many new things do researches discover, everything that we know was once "not notable" ie disease and alot of mental conditions. Given time this might be a big problem or become more notable so keep. Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 12:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I didn't bring up google hits to show its non-notability, but rather its relative notability.--Anchoress 12:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:OR and WP:V Massmato 15:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Massmato, and a number of others. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; unsourced article which seems to be original research. 33 ghits indicates the lady who coined the phrase is not very well known.--Firsfron of Ronchester 03:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it isn't 33 ghits, it's over 500 ghits and 33 hits on google academic.--Anchoress 22:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mattisse 22:03, 23 July 2006 (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.