Please remove the non-notability deletion flag on this article

THIS THEORY IS CLEARLY NOTABLE BASED ON WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES WP:GNG
Flagging this for deletion based on notability is completely without merit and would set a precedent for ridiculous applications of the notability guidelines which would go FAR beyond "what wiki is not: a collection of random information" and reduce Wikipedia to nothing more than the small portion of theories in any given field which are the most popular. Deleting this topic would harm many communication undergraduate and graduate students, the majority of whom are required to learn this in a Comm Theory course. See, for example, this widely used textbook by Communication super-star Leslie Baxter, in which Honeycutt's Imagined interaction Theory comprises an entire chapter. (<--- a secondary source; see below).


1. Significant coverage: PASSED.
A wealth of clear evidence of significant coverage exists. The Wiki itself cites 20+ publications across MULTIPLE PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS Many more (141 publications + 7 books cited 4100+ times) can be found with a university library search, including a lengthy Entry in the INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF COMMUNICATION, the flagship academic encyclopedia in the field (<--- a secondary source; see below).
This topic CLEARLY meets the significant coverage and OR requirements, which specifically state: "Primary sources may or MAY NOT be independent sources... a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted BY THE AUTHOR is a primary source". Exactly like the majority of the 141 peer-reviewed publications listed on this authors CV; social scientific research studies. The reliability guidelines specifically say "PRIMARY SOURCES that have been reputably published MAY BE USED in Wikipedia" and that they are "are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." That guideline is common sense, if Wikipedia were to prohibit sources which are "the original paper, and derivatives thereof", as the flag says, that literally would exclude every scientific theory in every field, because ALL good research is derivative of the original. Academic papers have literature reviews specifically to link a given study to previous studies as a replication, an extension, an or an improved research design, for example.

2.Reliable: PASSED.
The flag simply says "failed" which is not an actual argument. However, the reliability guidelines are also clearly met. It is comical to say these are unreliable! They guidelines state that "an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources". So, here are but a few examples: This article in HCR, a well respected journal, won top paper when it was presented at NCA in 2012, this book won distinguished book of the year in 2006, also from NCA, the top acdemic association/conference in the United States for this discipline. In 2015, this study on imagined interactions was published in THE most prestigious journal in the field of communication. I could go on and on presenting evidence here, but then I would get accused of bludgeoning.

He meets this criteria in another totally independent way, not just the general notability, but this meets a context specific reliability criteria. Scholarship specific reliability guidelines say that we can "confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. He has [ 4100+ citations on Google Scholar!! That's a lot in this discipline. A lot! I give a detailed analysis of why this is a lot on the personal Honeycutt page linked above.

3.Secondary sources: PASSED.
Again, the flag simply says "failed", and again, that's not an actual argument. Although many more exist, above I linked two secondary sources, the ENCYCLOPEDIA and the TEXTBOOK. They are clearly reliable under the reliability guidelines, which make plain that a researcher who publishes primary research can ALSO author their own secondary sources: [ Secondary does not mean "independent" or "uninvolved".]. Wikipedia guidelines bolded that, not me! The guidelines make it clear that the EDITORIAL PROCESS ALONE CAN ESTABLISH RELIABIITY REGARDLESS OF AUTHORSHIP, which is why the guidelines say AGAIN, on the page for secondary sources, as context specific as you can get, that "[ sources are not necessarily independent sources]" THE EDITORS OF THESE SECONDARY SOURCES SHOULD BE BEYOND REPROACH. The encyclopedia is published by ICA (THE TOP academic association for the discipline worldwide), and is " edited by an international team of the world's best scholars and teachers" The textbook, published by SAGE and edited by Leslie Baxter, a distinguished scholar of NCA as well as a Distinguished Professor at Iowa. who is held in extremely high regard by scholars in this discipline.

4. Independent of subject: PASSED.
The independence standard is clearly met. The guidelines exclude citing works that are a) "produced by the article's subject" or b) "someone affiliated with it". Clearly, a) can't be violated because the subject of the article is a theory and theories don't produce works. The standard in a) isn’t applicable to theories and is meant to disallow things like Bubba’s’s Auto Shop using it’s own press release that says it’s “internationally known” as evidence of notability. Also, b) is also not violated, because the guideline isn't intended to prevent citing works of researchers that are "affiliated with" the theories they research (which all researchers would be if “affiliated with” was construed to include “published on”). The standard in b) is intended to limit things like "advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website" as stated in the examples in the GNG:independence guidelines. Here the subject is an academic theory, so let's use an academic theory as an example; the Wikipedia page on the subject of "Evolution". Can we use Darwin? Not according to this deletion flag, Darwin is clearly "associated with" evolution so the standard the flag uses would disallow Darwin. What about establishing notability with something more modern, by citing H. Alan Orr, widely published on genetic adaptation? Nope. He is also "associated with" evolution so the standard the flag uses would disallow him as well, and so on, and so on, until we exclude every published expert on evolution from being used to establish that evolution meets the notability guidelines. Clearly, b) does not preclude citing James Honeycutt on the theory he published on for decades any more than it would exclude citing Darwin on evolution, and Darwin, or Orr, could write a review article that could be a secondary source for evolution, becasue AS LONG AS THE EDITORIAL PROCESS IS SOUND RESEARCHERS ARE ALLOWED TO AUTHOR THEIR OWN SECONDARY SOURCES. The guidelines literally say it in bold as the link above shows. Furthermore, as discussed above, this article’s many primary sources, which are published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, meet the OR guidelines, which specifically state: "Primary sources may or MAY NOT be independent sources... a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source". VirtualSwayy ( talk) 01:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)— VirtualSwayy ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

  * 
This textbook not written by honeycutt
  * 
Another textbook not written by Honeycutt
  * 
This Encyclopedia Entry not written by Honeycutt
  * 
This book chapter not by honeycutt
  * 
This review by Jim Abbot of Honeycutt's award-winning book