Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florence Nightingale effect

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Nightingale effect

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

First the information the article was started with is wrong

Florence Nightingale effect is a term used when people interpret an amiable bed side manner of a health care provider as affection.

The "Florence Nightingale Syndrome" is a term used to describe a situation where a caregiver typically a doctor or nurse falls in love with a patient. This reference is from Nurse Link published by Loyola University; http://www.luhs.org/feature/nursing/Images/Nurse_News%20vol1_issue%202.pdf

One paragraph and an erroneous interpretation of the term used in the movie Back to the Future does not warrant article status.
The term is mentioned (erroneously defined as well) in the article Florence Nightingale, and one correctly defined and referenced paragraph there can sum up the "Florence Nightingale effect".

The ref given states "This has been known to take place among patients who misinterpret their healthcare provider's pleasant bedside manner as affection, referred to as the 'Florence Nightingale effect'." This is from the journal of advertising history. [1] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry dude it was before the whole truce thing, but I really don't think there is enough information to fill an article.7mike5000 (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries I only created this article as someone had requested it at the request medical article page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sounds like article needs improvement, but two sources are already cited above. I'll see if can improve this during the AfD.--Milowent (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This source on economics link uses this metaphor to describe different levels of altruism in women. While this book seems to use the phrase as a synonym for Munchausen Syndrome by proxy. I'm unconvinced that any particular use of this phrase is common enough to write an article about. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could just redirect it to Medical_ethics#Sexual_relationships? :) Tim Vickers (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This is not really medicine but more rather literature. One finds this saying in numerous novels. Would be happy with a redirect and combining the content into somethings else.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect But where? The RWJ link points out another aspect: nurses neglecting their own well-being in deference to their patients. This aspect does not fit the medical ethics redirect so neatly. Unfortunately, Back to the Future trivia is going to cast a shadow over anything. I've looked at Countertransference, but it is too field specific. A literary target does have some merit.Novangelis (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could add this too Florence Nightingale Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about it, but the Back to the Future connection gave me a gut impression that it would have a trivia section feel. On the other hand, eponymous entities aren't the worst offenders. I think this might come down to least unsatisfying target. Something life this additional usage might tie the term back to the source.Novangelis (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2010 (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.