Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Psychology

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Psychology. 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|Psychology|~~~~}} 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 Psychology. 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.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Science.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Psychology/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Psychology

Raison oblige theory

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is full of WP:OR and the sources are either from the developer of this theory, Aiden Gregg, or they predate the development of this theory. I haven't found an independent use of this theory so I think the page should be deleted. Alternative could be trim back to the bare facts of the theory (the current lead basically). Moritoriko (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: the previous AFD is almost comical xD ) Moritoriko (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Moritoriko (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Situational leadership theory

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

This article may have been heavily edited by the authors of the theory for promotional purposes. It seems to lack citations that establish notability. -- Beland (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Psychology. Beland (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The academic sources seem to provide enough coverage to keep this article. I do admit this concept seems extraordinarily basic and I'm not sure how so much was written about something that could be largely explained in one paragraph. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can acknowledge that the article currently has issues. The suggestion that the concept is too "basic" for its own article is, however, subjective; plenty of notable topics are conceptually simple but still warrant standalone coverage when they receive in-depth treatment elsewhere. That being said, the concerns raised regarding promotional tone and insufficient citations are valid. However, they can and should be resolved as they fall within the scope of regular content refinement. Per Wikipedia's deletion policies, particularly WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTFINISHED, articles should be improved rather than removed when the subject has the potential to meet certain notability criteria. Deletion at this stage, in my opinion, feels premature when the topic can still be improved. I am actively working to revise the article to meet Wikipedia's standards by: Removing any promotional or non-neutral language; Adding independent, reliable secondary sources; Condensing or restructuring as needed for clarity. I am deeply committed to addressing these issues promptly, so please allow time to make these revisions possible. I welcome any additional input from editors to help bring this article up to standard.Jk tilley (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crowds (adolescence)

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

While well-cited, this article appears to largely WP:CFORK related topics like Peer group, Clique, and Adolescent clique. Many of the reliable sources cited in the article refer to "peer groups" or "peer networks", not "crowds". Few incoming links, low pageviews. Merge relevant content to aforementioned articles. 162 etc. (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychology and Social science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal monotonicity

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

A 'straw man' concept and neologism that hasn't significantly escaped the work of Kahneman and colleagues. Only the first two cited references (from that group) mention the concept, and then only to dismiss it. The other references don't mention the concept by this name at all. Ngram search doesn't recognize the phrase "temporal monotonicity". Klbrain (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is essentially rehashing original research by Kahneman et al. Bearian (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Could merge a bit to Daniel Kahneman, no? Hyperbolick (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

An automatically generated list of proposed deletions and other psychology-related article alerts can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Article alerts

No articles proposed for deletion at this time.