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

Bruce Rind

AfDs for this article:

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

This article, recently expanded from a redirect, was previously deleted at AfD in 2019. Nothing has changed since then. The subject is still a non-notable purveyor of fringe theories - about pedophilia supposedly being non-harmful - and fails WP:NPROF. The sources in the article fall into at least one of two categories:

Sources discussing the Rind et al. controversy, on which we already have a much better article. Having a separate article on Rind himself violates WP:BLP1E and WP:CFORK. That existing article also contains pertinent details missing from this creation, such as Rind et al. controversy#Possible bias, that Rind et al.'s results "are "truly an outlier" compared to other meta-analyses", and so forth.

An array of non-significant coverage; things like minor commentary/reply pieces in journals, minor interest pieces in local news, and the like. A few bits and pieces of discussion of someone's ideas in the literature do not a notable person make (else nearly every researcher would be notable).

Taking things more broadly, Rind's views on pedophilia are thoroughly WP:FRINGE, same as other such fringe material that has been removed from Wikipedia. This article as it was created, whether intentionally or not, is effectively a whitewash, as it presents the criticism of his ideas as almost entirely a conservative moral panic, while ignoring a much broader range of criticism. What little here is significant coverage is much better covered elsewhere. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sexuality and gender, Behavioural science, Psychiatry, and Psychology. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article subject fails notability guidelines especially in light of there already being an article on the only matter the subject is known for. This article was already deleted once and it appears it was created again by a brand new user that was unaware of the previous decision and its reasoning.Legitimus (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sources unrelated to the 1998 controversy, so other editors may examine them individually. I created this article mostly because of them. [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Cheers. V. S. Video (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't commonly comment at AfD, but these don't look like sources about Rind and more like sources about a topic he has commented on. Generally, we need the former type of source to establish notability of a person. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Idea networking

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

Concept seems restricted to the ideas of one academic, primary sourced to his papers, suggesting original research. Also has a very similar name "Metcalfe"/"Metcalm" to the user account which created this article. Search for "idea networking" brings up various uses of the term, but none of which seem to be the same as what is described here. Jdcooper (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioural science proposed deletions