Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jealousy coping

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. Will userfy on request of someone who specifically wants it in their userspace, as always. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jealousy coping

A slightly tentative nomination this. The article is by Kc62301 whose article User:Kc62301/Relationship rules was userfied by the decision of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ground rules relationships. On a cursory read, the same objections apply to jealousy coping: however high its quality, it is still an original essay. Also it verges too far into how-to guide territory. -- RHaworth 08:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and userfy - same reasoning as others stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ground rules relationships. /Blaxthos 11:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep When the author of an encyclopedia article has a large number of sources from which to draw, the author must select some sources and omit other sources to meet the space constraints of the article. Any encyclopedia article that tries to cover a few different areas of a large topic, and has to select sources for each area, can be considered an original essay. The issue of NOR is whether or not (1) the information comes from verifiable sources, and (2) the information is presented in the same way as in the original sources, and (3) the combination of sources cited does not lead to a new idea or theory. All major ideas in this article come from previously published, verifiable, and reliable sources. The information cited is presented with the same interpretation as presented by the original authors of the cited references. The article reviews several aspects of coping with jealousy, but does not offer a new idea for coping with jealousy or a new theory about coping with jealousy. It just reviews different aspects in separate sections. So the argument for original research seems ungrounded. The How-To argument seems a more understandable argument. But, when it comes to jealousy, the scientists who study it are interested in the question of how to deal with it. How to deal with jealousy is a valid research question in the field of relationship psychology. If an article reviews research conducted by experts on how to deal with jealousy, the findings will come close to sounding like a how-to guide. But it remains a review of a valid research topic. So I disagree with this being a justification for deletion. User:kc62301 16:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Essay, with a bit of advice column thrown in, not encyclopedic article. Fan-1967 18:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Looks like OR to me. QuiteUnusual 19:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Jealousy. This is pretty much just advice rather than an encyclopedia article. It shouldn't be deleated, just shortened and merged with Jealousy. UnDeRsCoRe 21:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and userfy. This is an essay. Advice and/or essays don't belong in the mainspace, no matter how good. They're not encyclopedic. Besides, advice usually intrinsically fails WP:NPOV. (I am not qualified to speak to that in this case.) Even if it is neutral, and documents any contreversy, cites studies which differ and disagree, etc, it must be encyclopedic and notable. Parts of this content may work in Jealousy, but that would be more up to Kc62301 to make the adjustments and include them in an encyclopedic manner, rather than as an essay. As such, I cannot recommend a merge. I must recommend delete and userfy. I also suggest that Kc62301 makes the contributions he or she sees fit to Jealousy. AubreyEllenShomo 21:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Essentially just an essay. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 03:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Well-written, but still WP:OR. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and smerge (partial merge) to jealousy. It's got a lot of good information in it, but it's probably better kept in one article at this point. This may be interpreted as a keep for consensus purposes. -- nae'blis 20:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a term paper to me - nothing about it says encyclopedia, and it reads like it summarizes curriculum sources rather than finding the heart of the matter. As it were. - Corporal Tunnel 01:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

October 2006

• Keep It contains at least some good, referenced information. Therefore edit it and keep it. Psychology is an academic subject, and research into jealousy is a valid part of it.

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.