Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moral breakdown

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. Sandstein 08:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moral breakdown[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Delete Apparently an inappropriate Synthesis_of_published_material. It lacks in-depth coverage in sources. Dimadick (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Michael Davis (juggler) had an act where he would say he was juggling George Washington's ax... over the years they had merely replaced the handle. And the blade. But it occupied the same space as George Washington's ax.

That sounds to me like what you're proposing - an article with a different title, and different content. At which point, it is not this article. It may be a worthwhile one, but we need not save this one for it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be impractical, but it is in every other way the best solution and what should happen, and this title should link to the new article. Which isn't to say that what you propose is not true; they will doubtless both have the same end result, seeing as WP is unplanned and voluntary. Anarchangel (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see how Moral decay or Moral breakdown are any different from Decadence. Is this turning into a series of forks? Bearian (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't read any further, as I am now 2 for 2 paragraphs distinguishing the concepts: "among the members of the elite", and may imply "censure or acceptance" Anarchangel (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't meet Wikipedia standards in its current state. If it can be put in a sandbox and worked on, then perhaps that should be pursued. 23:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capt. Milokan (talk • contribs)

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.