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 delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valério Souza-Neto

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

Does not have enough WP:SIGCOV from reliable and independent sources other than the academic journal articles he wrote. The articles he wrote are not considered independent sources. Any independent sources I find about this individual, but not by this individual, are WP:SELFPUBLISHED or otherwise unreliable. Z. Patterson (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They seem to be doing fine for a PhD student [1], but they are obviously a long, long way off any of the WP:NPROF criteria (also noting that the piece in Nature mentioned in the article is a letter to the editor, not a journal article). I didn't find any secondary coverage that could suggest a possible WP:GNG pass. MCE89 (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Travel and tourism, Behavioural science, Economics, Psychology, Australia, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not remotely close to passing WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article and nothing in his Google Scholar profile even hint at academic notability nor any other form of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suspect this is just a very obvious case of self promotion, without any actual merit behind. —Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, the subject does not have enough WP:SIGCOV from reliable and independent sources. Much of the coverage available is WP:SELFPUBLISHED. He also fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete joining the chorus. Autobiographical page of a PhD student who, I suspect, did not look at notability criteria. A decade or so away. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2025 (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.

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 Culture#Description. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super culture

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

"Super culture" doesn't seem to be an established term in anthropology. The book referenced actually says "To correspond with the term "sub-culture", a new term "super-culture" might be invented..." which suggests to me this is a term that was only used by few people. I don't think this warrants a redirect to "Culture", given that "Super culture" would be a very uncommon search term if it's not in use in anthropology. Kylemahar902 (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Behavioural science and Social science. Kylemahar902 (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the paragraph in Culture#Description, where subculture and counterculture are already defined. A single sentence to acknowledge little more than the fact that the term has been created should be sufficient. The sentence in the nominated article "Super-culture is a culture encompassing several subcultures with common elements" with its source should be sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for ATDs?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as WhatamIdoing suggests. A quick search of gbooks suggests that this is a fairly commonly used term, so definitely plausible search/information term. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:13, 12 March 2025 (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