Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moral breakdown: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Anarchangel (talk | contribs) |
Anarchangel (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:::[https://www.google.com/search?q=moral+decline&tbs=sbd:1&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ACYBGNQTDQuVlU9eqQPRam4LbdqWyO6YyA:1575674381506&ei=DeLqXdKzHsfz-gTz5q7ICA&start=480&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwiS7qm-lKLmAhXHuZ4KHXOzC4k4wgMQ8tMDCIUB&biw=1307&bih=562&dpr=1 Google Books results for moral decline] and [https://www.google.com/search?q=moral+decay&tbs=sbd:1&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ACYBGNSlQVDQBXKpqoZGebPbktHI0iDB3A:1575674334679&ei=3uHqXeKIKcz9-gT_n4fwDQ&start=490&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwji7_-nlKLmAhXMvp4KHf_PAd444AMQ8tMDCHs&biw=1307&bih=562&dpr=1 Google Books results for moral decay] seem almost equally populated, which is to say, both of them have been widely discussed since the middle of the 20th Century. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 23:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC) |
:::[https://www.google.com/search?q=moral+decline&tbs=sbd:1&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ACYBGNQTDQuVlU9eqQPRam4LbdqWyO6YyA:1575674381506&ei=DeLqXdKzHsfz-gTz5q7ICA&start=480&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwiS7qm-lKLmAhXHuZ4KHXOzC4k4wgMQ8tMDCIUB&biw=1307&bih=562&dpr=1 Google Books results for moral decline] and [https://www.google.com/search?q=moral+decay&tbs=sbd:1&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ACYBGNSlQVDQBXKpqoZGebPbktHI0iDB3A:1575674334679&ei=3uHqXeKIKcz9-gT_n4fwDQ&start=490&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwji7_-nlKLmAhXMvp4KHf_PAd444AMQ8tMDCHs&biw=1307&bih=562&dpr=1 Google Books results for moral decay] seem almost equally populated, which is to say, both of them have been widely discussed since the middle of the 20th Century. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 23:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC) |
||
::: The article should of course be rewritten at some point, but it is a valid topic for Wikipedia. I would prefer to it remaining in mainspace. If the consensus becomes that the current article should be hidden in some way, I would like to exhort the closer and voters to take all available steps to prioritize the process of its rebirth. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 23:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC) |
::: The article should of course be rewritten at some point, but it is a valid topic for Wikipedia. I would prefer to it remaining in mainspace. If the consensus becomes that the current article should be hidden in some way, I would like to exhort the closer and voters to take all available steps to prioritize the process of its rebirth. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 23:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::I would rewrite the lede sentence as: |
|||
:::::"'''Moral decay''' is a [[value judgement]] about society as a whole, that sees a degradation or loss of [[Morality|moral values]]." |
|||
::::The article gets bogged down around the part where it tries to distinguish the correctness of a judgement of moral decay and the incorrectness of a moral panic. Ideally, we need to be saying that they both are ethical assessments, without regard to being correct or not, and that is something that [[moral panic]] also fails to do. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 23:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:45, 6 December 2019
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Moral breakdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article seems to be a POV coatrack for editors to point to societal changes as "moral breakdown" of the society, with the online sources not generally using that term (and those that do, like philforhumanity.com, not being reliable sources.) Google Scholar uses of the term "moral breakdown" are generally addressing an event for an individual, not a society, or are discussing the analysis of morals. Non-scholar invocations that I am finding are using it as a term of POV attack on a society and are not an analysis of what constitutes one in a way that would contribute to notability as a topic. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Draft. Definitely something to include about tendencies to use the phrase, but ought not be misrepresented as a known area of study. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Apparently an inappropriate Synthesis_of_published_material. It lacks in-depth coverage in sources. Dimadick (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Rename to Moral decay, which is mentioned in the lede, has been widely used for hundreds of years, and all but the first example illustrate. Anarchangel (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Do any of the sources used actually reference "moral decay", or will moving it still leave it the same sort of POV original research spectacle that it is now? --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Google Books results for moral decline and Google Books results for moral decay seem almost equally populated, which is to say, both of them have been widely discussed since the middle of the 20th Century. Anarchangel (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- The article should of course be rewritten at some point, but it is a valid topic for Wikipedia. I would prefer to it remaining in mainspace. If the consensus becomes that the current article should be hidden in some way, I would like to exhort the closer and voters to take all available steps to prioritize the process of its rebirth. Anarchangel (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- I would rewrite the lede sentence as:
- "Moral decay is a value judgement about society as a whole, that sees a degradation or loss of moral values."
- The article gets bogged down around the part where it tries to distinguish the correctness of a judgement of moral decay and the incorrectness of a moral panic. Ideally, we need to be saying that they both are ethical assessments, without regard to being correct or not, and that is something that moral panic also fails to do. Anarchangel (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- I would rewrite the lede sentence as:
- Do any of the sources used actually reference "moral decay", or will moving it still leave it the same sort of POV original research spectacle that it is now? --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)