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 speedy keep. SK1: no arguments for deletion, including nominator (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traumatic grief[edit]

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

The article is a stub with one source and could be folded into the article on Grief so as to avoid cruft. At this point, the subject does not appear to merit a seperate article. --Fiat Lux (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grief - The citations and references mention "Complex Grief" and don't say Traumatic grief as a direct mention that would allow for inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of you two are helping Wikipedia. VNonesuch, you aren't helping Wikipedia by nominating articles for deletion because "it is a stub". Please read and apply Wikipedia:Deletion policy properly. Pmedema you aren't helping Wikipedia by giving zero-effort rationales at AFD, where you don't even look for sources yourself. Wikipedia, and AFD, are helped by editors who see articles and put the effort in, rather than tag and don't do their research.
It took me ten seconds to put "traumatic grief" into Google Books and come up with Jacobs1999, which is a 112 page book on this subject, describing its analysis as a disorder and discussing its consensus psychiatric diagnostic criteria. It doesn't take much longer to come up with other sources discussing criteria for the disorder, sources giving several of the various names, and sources discussing its inclusion in the APA's DSM. This is a valid stub with ample scope for expansion, nominated solely for being a stub, and tagged for deletion some 3 hours after it was created. Deletion policy applied properly in this instance is keep and allow the article to expand in the normal organic way. Uncle G (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2010 (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.