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. The article consisted of one sentence that may or may not be meaningful ("Moral Cynicism is temptation to give up on the dreams and ideas of youth after complications of adulthood come to overshadow them.") and has zero sources. WP:V, as a core policy, overrides all "keep" arguments. Sandstein 20:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moral cynicism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article is a dictionary definition and might be transwikied to Wiktionary. That's nice, because Answers.com doesn't have a separate entry for "moral cynicism". (Please forgive my moral cynicism.) Shalom ^Hello 01:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki then speedy per nom. KTC 08:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete Already transwikied. Spellcast 08:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, has already crossed the ethereal plane to Wiktionary. Realkyhick 17:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Moral cynicism is a well-known philosophical concept, comparable to psychological egoism but differing in subject scope so as to justify an independent article. It is well-established concept within academia and is notably used in philosophical literature -- see here for evidence of notability and here for a brief explanation. The term has not actually been transwikied (as of time of writing) as claimed in the article; but regardless, inclusion in Wiktionary is not a reason to remove an article from Wikipedia. Moral cynicism is not a difficult concept to grasp, but a one-sentence blip won't do it justice. There is plenty of room for the article to expand, and lack of current progress is not a reason for deletion. --xDanielx^Talk 22:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it wasn't transwikied (misleading banner). But can this be expanded into a full article like Moral relativism or Moral absolutism? If this can't be expanded beyond a few lines, it should simply stay in Wiktionary. Spellcast 05:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to admit that I don't think the subject of moral cynicism is (explicitly) discussed anywhere near that of moral relativism, the latter being so well-known and much-written-about, but I think the concept is similar in depth. We'd have to dig deeper for reliable (and interesting) sources to develop an article of the same length, but I think it can be done. I'd be happy to contribute as time permits, though I'd rather see the result of the AfD before doing substantial work on it. In short, I don't think it's nearly as notable as either moral relativism or moral absolutism, but the topic has drawn attention from very notable and reliable academic sources. I hope the quick links I gave will suffice for now. --xDanielx^Talk 08:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• By my understanding of the term (which is of course fallible), this concept amounts to essentially the same thing as Moral skepticism, for which we already have a working article. Given that a) this article now contains no content, really, b) this article has already been transwikied, c) we have a better article about the same thing and d) the name of this article is, kinda, a plausible search term, could we redirect to Moral skepticism? Jdcooper 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The naming is virtually identical, but they're actually very different. Moral skepticism means skepticism of the concept of morality as meaningful, epistemologically or otherwise -- Nietzsche is the classic advocate. Moral cynicism is cynicism of peoples' ability to act in accordance with morality via selfless motives -- a defendant of the view would argue that selfless motives are illusory, and morality is only followed for selfish reasons. I'm not sure who coined the term, but s/he must have been in a rather bad mood at the time. :) --xDanielx^Talk 17:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per xDanielx. Mathmo ^Talk 21:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki and delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, plain and simple. Stifle (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki and/or redirect to moral skepticism.--Fabrictramp 12:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my note above. — xDanielx^Talk 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The fact that this stub has not been expanded to the topic's obvious potential is that it would be a waste of time to improve an article that will soon be removed. Tagging an article for deletion before it can be improved has a strong negative effect on those who write and improve articles, as opposed to policing the Wikipedia for "notability," and sufficient blandness, and assuring that only topics amply covered in other media are included.Michael J Swassing 02:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep The article can be really expanded in the future. -- Magioladitis 10:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The fact that the article is a stub should have no bearing on this discussion - the subject is notable and comprehensive enough for an article. Skomorokh ^incite 00:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete That the phrase occurs in a few academic journals is not evidence that "moral cynicism" is a distinct philosophical concept. I have been unable to find an article on this topic in any tertiary source. It follows that the topic is unlikely ever to be more than a stub. Delete as not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Banno 00:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki too minor of a concept in ethics to have anything other than a definition. --Buridan 14:25, 12 August 2007 (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.