Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Behavioural science

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Behavioural science. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Behavioural science|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Behavioural science. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Behavioural science/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Please be sure to follow the three basic steps when nominating an article for deletion. While not required, it is courteous to also notify interested people—such as those who created the article, or those who have contributed significant work to it. Thank you.

Behavioural science

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 merge to Terminology within polyamory. As an aside, should that not be "Terminology of polyamory"? Sandstein 08:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiamory

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

This is a good example of what WP:Neologism is intended to prevent (and WP:DICDEF more generally). This also fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources cited are either clearly unreliable (wikis, a polyamory blog) or are marginal at best. The Allure article just gives a passing mention via a definition. Even if we counted "Kinkly.com" as an RS, which seems like a stretch, it certainly does not satisfy SIGCOV's requirement for multiple reliable sources. This term returns zero results on Google Scholar. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Sexuality and gender, Behavioural science, and Psychology. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Limited merge and redirect to Terminology within polyamory. There is not enough here to justify an article even if most of the references were not to wikis. The Metro reference is what saves it from being deleted completely. A single sentence supported by the Metro reference is all it needs for anybody who is curious to find out what it means. I doubt there is much more to say about it. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing has inexplicably gotten worse since I nominated it. It cites even more wikis now and WP:METRO is listed at RSP as generally unreliable. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with this. As for the sourcing, I thought I had improved it. As it is an obscure term, I am not surprised that reliable sources are difficult to find. I hope to put this behind me and be more conscientious with my citations in the future.

~~~ I'm User:Infinity128, thank you for coming to my TED talk. 07:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Terminology within polyamory per DanielRigal. The websites validate it as a term within the non-monogamous/polyamorous spectrum. At the least the sources that were on this article and are in other interwikis. MikutoH (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, per WP:NOTDICT, WP:NEO. Mathglot (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2022 (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.

Behavioural science proposed deletions