Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blunted affect

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 of the debate was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blunted affect

Looks like original research. P0per 04:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Mo0[talk] 04:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but it still needs a healthy does of Cleanup. Mo0[talk] 03:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - original research. Thesquire 09:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and cleanup. This is real; or at least, I've heard of it before. The symptom of blunted affect is fairly significant in psychiatry, where "affect" is used as jargon for non-verbal communication and emotional reactivity. The poster apparently made the mistake of leading off with his signature. This doesn't make it original research; it even has references. It needs to be made encyclopedic; don't bite the newbie. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I appreciate Smerdis' point. Also, our own Affect article describes "blunted affect" briefly. However, the text here is not specifically about "blunted affect". In fact the title given at the top of the article text is "Affect and how to describe it." It's written from the author's very specific point of view. I would rather see this article start from scratch. FreplySpang (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep and cleanup - thanks for the expansion, Naif! FreplySpang (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A couple users have taken to blanking the Affect page, on the grounds that it does not belong here because it contains "dictionary definitions." (What a perverse load of. . .) I have restored it with minor edits, and suggested that they raise it here. Smerdis of Tlön 00:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and cleanup. Wikipedia has a systematic bias against moods/feelings, which lie just outside the normal bounds of logic, but are no less worthy of encyclopedia entries. - Naif 05:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've expanded and cleaned up the article. Please reconsider all votes. - Naif 17:24, 19 December 2005 (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.