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 Blessing in disguise. There is clear consensus against keeping this as a standalone article, and broad support for a merge as an ATD. Among the two targets proposed, Blessing in disguise received marginally more support than Silver lining (idiom), but the choice between the two can be discussed editorially on the Talk page, and changed if there's consensus there to do so. If no merger takes place within two months, any editor may blank and redirect the page to the target, or renominate. Owen× ☎ 23:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt toast theory

AfDs for this article:

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

Unremarkable non-notable ephemeral Tik-Tok dreck. Perhaps worth a sentence elsewhere…maybe a slang dictionary. Qwirkle (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... regretfully. It has multiple sources with WP:SIGCOV extending across months of coverage. Not seeing a policy based rationale for deleting this. Unfortunately social media trends often create articles of this type.4meter4 (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I was intending to nominate it to AfD, saw it was already done. WP:10YT and WP:NOPAGE apply here. Significant coverage, specially in short news articles about a flash-in-pan phenomenon doesn't necessarily mean that a subject must have a page. It can be better covered in a sentence in any of the many articles on very similar cultural concepts, already listed in the "see also" section or at the top. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Behavioural science, Engineering, and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have doubts about the topic's notability. It really looks to me like there was just one TikTok post that managed to inspire several copycat pop psychology articles on various websites for a couple of months. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you make a case that all of these articles are from content farms, you are essentially just reaffirming the subject's notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So would the article in The Indian Express negate my whole argument? Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Combined with Glamour, HuffPost, Grazia, and a local station, yes. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll admit I don't actually know how the news cycle operates in those publications. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All that matters is that we believe major publications until shown evidence of lack of editorial oversight. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused. What are they saying that we're supposed to believe? That there've been a handful of posts on social media about burnt toast? Clarinetguy097 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:GNG. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have, and it says that "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." Clarinetguy097 (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's a valid argument. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Blessing in disguise per TryK. Meets SIGCOV, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think that this is notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia page, and like I mentioned in the discussion to merge it into Blessing in disguise, I don't think that it belongs there either. Feed Me Your Skin (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have only discussed why it does not belong on the Silver lining page, which I agree with; you haven't argued why Blessing in disguise is unsuitable.

(@Feed Me Your Skin, welcome to AfD! In case you didn't know, these discussions don't give you notifications. Click on the star on the top of the page and install User:Aaron Liu/Watchlyst Greybar Unsin.) Aaron Liu (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like nonsensical mysticism, while burning my toast might prevent me from being hit by a falling meteor, it's equally possible that not burning my toast would also save me, so this theory could be punctured by someone with two brain cells of common sense to rub together. It has only been circulated in clickbait publications, and doesn't feel similar enough to "blessing in disguise". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are valid arguments against retaining here, but as said above, there are many RSs that SIGCOV the subject. Also, while I sympathize with criticism of the idea, the idea is not a deletion argument and goes under WP:NOTFORUM. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the articles are clearly clickbait so I would disagree that they are "reliable sources". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you don't like the headlines. How does that have any bearing on the fact that The Indian Express, Glamour, HuffPost, Grazia~~, and a local station~~ (actually, maybe scratch the local station that did not fact check a sponsorship, but what about the rest?) are reliable sources? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has WP:SIGCOV.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to comment on the Merge argument? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that user just wants to keep it. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu - I agree that it's a type of sliver lining. I can't say I agree with merging it though. It has enough coverage to stay. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or in the alternative, merge to Blessing in disguise. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sigcov is not achieved. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have arguments here for Deletion, Keeping and Merging with two different Merge target articles suggested. Remember this is a discussion about the notability of an article subject, let's maintain civility. Some editors just want to present their argument and not get into a debate about it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It seems that the topic does strictly satisfy SigCov, but per @TryKid and @Clarinetguy097's arguments I do not believe it is suitable for its own article. I think merger would be the best way to maintain the core information without puffing a topic out of proportion. Lenny Marks (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ As another user noted, it's an ephemeral TikTok trend, and I don't believe the evidence for notability is very strong. Most of the sources just assert that the original post went viral (or something to that effect), with a few referencing other isolated social media posts or making similar vague claims about "people" applying the burnt toast theory to an aviation accident. Also, I don't see a reason for merging into "Silver lining" or "Blessing in disguise." Clarinetguy097 (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blessing in disguise covers basically the same thing, and some sources also connect the two. I don't see how the secondary sources' covering the same primary source has any bearing on the notability, though your argument above of this being a brief burst is still valid. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not notable, there's no good reason to move the content into another article. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is one of the alternatives to deletion. Not every part of a page has to be notable; only the main subject has to be. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge two or three sentences with Blessing in disguise#Related phrases. It's the same concept, there's really not much of substance in Burnt toast theory, and no-one will talk about this in 10 years (WP:10YT). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, but oppose merge. I would normally say that coverage over 5 months would probably make for a WP:NEVENT pass, but in this case it just looks like a slower-moving version of the same flash in the pan – continued coverage seems unlikely, but I do see the case for a keep given the amount and duration of the coverage. That said, there really isn't a suitable merge target for this per WP:COATRACK – if blessing in disguise or silver lining (idiom) were ever taken to GA or FA, any content writer worth their salt would probably remove a one-off viral phenomenon as basically irrelevant. So a merge seems like a bad solution. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:47, 24 September 2024 (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