Deletion of Delayed grief

Comment: I regret that this frivolous AfD has been submitted. I knew when I created the article ''"Delayed grief"'' that there was a high risk that it would be spotted in another user-talk page, then followed, and later attacked by people trying to limit the content of the article ''"Murder of Meredith Kercher"''. Perhaps the AfD against this article is a veiled form of censorship, and should be investigated as a extreme violation of : deleting an article to limit the spread of unwanted sourced information
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: The term "delayed grief" reveals many sources on the main Google search and on both Google Books and Google Scholar, so I would argue that deletion would be unmerited in this scenario. However, since the main Grief article is only about 21-22 kilobytes in size, considering , the content from the "Delayed grief" article as it stands could be merged into that page, as the nominator suggests. The same could arguably be done in the cases of other articles in the "Grief" category, such as Anticipatory grief and Disenfranchised grief, or perhaps a separate "Types of grief" page could be created
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SPINOUT)

Comment: I think this warrants a section in the Grief article, but given the current amount of information, not an article on its own. I think the Amanda Knox example should be removed, as there is nothing in it (or in the references) to identify it as an actual diagnosed example of delayed grief, and so that seems to be  /  (I have no idea whether or not it is coatracking, so I'm not trying to judge it on that - just on the content of the article as it stands
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: not a oatrack - no coats on this rack.''''' In claiming that the article is a "coat-rack" there should be documented proof that the article contains, or had contained, a series of "coats" being hung as tangent topics within the text of the article. There are no coats, no list of tangent concepts not related to the subject of ''delayed grief'', and hence, this is a frivolous AfD delete request, wasting people's time. Also, I did not invent the article's topic: Google matches 18,400 for "Delayed grief" or Bing.com states "15,000,000 results" for ''Delayed grief'', and Yahoo! Search shows 14,300 results (for "Delayed grief"). This was one of numerous common topics missing from Wikipedia: I have created hundreds of new articles, with dozens about common topics, and frivolous AfDs do not help
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: The diff provided by the Magnificent Clean-keeper is concerning, and the Amanda Knox case seems to have been a principal motivation for the creation of this article. The "Examples" section as it stands hinges mainly on the (unsourced) assertion that Knox and "delayed grief" are connected, when the only Google web search result that includes both of these phrases happens to be the article that is the subject of this deletion nomination. A search for "Amanda Knox" and "delayed grief" in Google News yields precisely zero results, making the Knox paragraph |original research and |synthesis. The rest of the article is above the level of a |dictionary definition since it cites reliable sources, but on its own I would say that it is not enough to support a separate article when there is a prospective parent (Grief) into which it could be merged. While it is true that |there is no deadline for article development on Wikipedia, the same essay proposes that there is no rush to create a new article "until its significance is unambiguously established." "Delayed grief" is a notable concept, but for the moment, on Wikipedia, it could just be included in a subsection on the main "Grief" article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:DICTIONARY||WP:DEADLINE)

Comment: The topic is highly notable, as evidenced by others.  Any issues with the article may be addressed by ordinary editing in accordance with our |editing policy.  If I were to edit it, I might add the example of Richard Feynman, who experienced delayed grief after the death of his first wife.  Giving this example would not make the article a coatrack; it would just be an  illustration of the concept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)