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. Michig (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce Recovery[edit]

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

This is an Original research essay that explains how Divorce ties in to the Five stages of grief. It doesn't appear to me to be noteworthy enough for an independent article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - as presented, most of it is unsourced, some of what is sourced is mis-sourced (such as sourcing the opening sentence to a dictionary def of "recovery", so it appears to be a WP:OR essay. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. ~~Keep~~ – It does read like an essay, but it's not OR. The connection to the 5 stages is obvious and was made back in 1988 by the Rosenstock book, which is cited in the article, and repeated since then by divorce counselors. In fact a large part of the article is a word-for-word copy or close paraphrase of Neumann, who is also cited. So if anything there are copyright issues. It needs a new lead that describes the content better. It should probably also be renamed something like "Five stages of divorce recovery". But if that was done I think it's a well-defined topic that could have an article. The copyvio parts will have to be removed, which may leave some sections as stubs, perhaps just the title of the stage. They would have to be filled in later. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - the parts that I didn't strike out as copyvio are basically copyvio of this source (and it also looks like the sourcing may have just been copied from there, rather than checked directly, which is a no-no.) Strike what's there, and we're basically left with an opening sentence, sourced to a dictionary definition that doesn't cover it, on a page that would have to be moved anyway due to Improper Title Capitalization. This is not to say that an article on this topic could not arise under a similar title and be acceptable, but as it stands, it's looking pretty WP:G12 to me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Well, that was drastic. I guess anyone who wants to know what article we are talking about will now have to look at the history. Unfortunately this is a problem with new editors – they think that citing sources means copying them. If we are going to say that copyrighted material must not exist on Wikipedia, which is the policy, then I guess delete is the only option. But this is the wrong forum for that. This article should have been reported to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Here our job is to decide whether a properly sourced article could be written, and we both seem to agree that it could. I would suggest that the best course, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (2nd bullet point from the top) might be to withdraw this nomination and report the article to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deleting the portions that are clear violations of copyright is not "drastic", it's what WP:COPYVIO calls for ("If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known."), although in this case I carried the information about the source of the violations in the edit summary rather than the discussion page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep - it's referenced enough to be notable, but the article does need a total rewrite Deunanknute (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more than spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2015 (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.