Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Responsibility assumption

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 no consensus. One delete (the nominator), one merge - despite 2 relistings, there is no consensus to delete PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility assumption

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

I came across this because I was looking at article with old original research tags (July 2007), and there's certainly a great deal of OR here, but looking it over, I'm not sure it meets WP:GNG. The article contains no in-line citations. A Google News search for the phrase turned up nothing. A regular Google search doesn't seem to turn up any reliable sources, and if you filter out mentions of WP, most of the results appear to be liability wavers using the phrase "Release from Responsibility, Assumption of Risk, and Waiver". A Google books search brings up one book (the "Existential Psychotherapy" listed as a reference in the article) with a sub-chapter called "Responsibility Assumption and Psychotherapy" (22 pages of a nearly 500 page book), but the rest are passing mentions of the phrase. The other non-fiction book cited in the reference section, A Course in Miracles, also showed up in Google Books in a seperate search for that, but searching in the book returned no mention of the phrase "responsibilty assumption" at all in it. That one book doesn't seem like enough to me. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*According to the article, the relevant essay was reprinted in the third addition of Current Psychotheraphy, which is a standard college text. The current (10th) edition of this work still has a 34-page extract from Existential Psychotherapy. But it no longer mentions this subject. So the subject may have have been reasonably notable back in the 1980s, but later dropped under the radar. Mound of the Dead (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Comment by user blocked for being a sock puppet. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the well-sourced content with Moral psychology. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:25, 16 October 2013 (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.