Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behavior theory

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 keep. Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior theory

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

A very badly formed dab page with no acceptable entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Badly formatted? So fix it. No acceptable entries? And what kind of criteria is that? It's a helpful disambig page; this should be speedy closed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see nothing wrong with this disambiguation page. It has a clear topic and three or more articles it links to, meeting the qualifications for such a page. Sure, each of the linked articles could use a single sentence addition giving a bit of explanation of what they are, but that doesn't mean the page should be deleted. Quite the opposite, actually. Silver seren^C 09:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You both need to read WP:PTM. At best, the entries have the words "behavior" and "theory" in their titles, at worst, they don't even do that. Perhaps it could be renamed List of behavior theories, but it is not a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When someone is referring to "behavior theory", which is quite common in psychology and sociology, they could be referring to any of the listed theories. This perfectly fits PTM because these theories ARE often just referred to as "behavior theory" when people are talking about them. Silver seren^C 22:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's too generic IMO. Each entry is a behavior theory. The Ford Mustang is a car, but you don't see it listed in Car (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you're trying to refer to a Ford Mustang specifically, calling it car isn't descriptive. However, if someone is talking about psychology and refers to behavior theory, another psychologist would know which theory is being spoken of, similarly if a sociologist spoke about behavior theory. Like PTM says, the Mississippi River is often called "the Mississippi", which is why it is included at the disambiguation page. Silver seren^C 00:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The couple of those items that I am acquainted with are referred to simply as behaviour theory, so the DAB seems to be a valid one. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per WP:SOFIXIT, I attempted to make it look more like a disambiguation by copy and pasting definitions from each individual article. Maybe someone who knows more about the subject can verify my work and/or simplify it. My only question is whether "learning theory" would be referred to as "behavior theory," but I left it there anyway. Tavix | Talk 01:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing an actual deletion reason being listed. WP:BEFORE and WP:SOFIXIT. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:44, 16 December 2014 (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.