 | Points of interest related to
Behavioural sciences on Wikipedia: Category |
| Points of interest related to
Cognitive science on Wikipedia: Category – WikiProject – Alerts – To-do |
| Points of interest related to
Psychology on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style |
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.
- Note that 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 links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Behavioural science.
- 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:| watch |
See also:
Science-related deletions and
Social science-related deletions.
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.
Going Ape
- Going Ape ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was previously deleted after an expired PROD. I could not find significant coverage of this documentary in reliable sources. I could not find any critical reviews. The New York Times source states, in full: "This three-part series looks at the way humans mimic chimpanzee behavior, starting with the power walk and dominance posture of the alpha male." The Futon Critic is a press release. A redirect to National Geographic Channel might be appropriate. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 03:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Animal, Science, Behavioural science, Psychology, and Social science. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 03:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The article should probably be marked as a stub in need for more references. As a National Geographic TV show featuring renowned primatologist and presenter Charlotte Uhlenbroek, it must have had coverage and reviews in media. The New York Times link is an example.
JohnMizuki (
talk) 11:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @ JohnMizuki, I conducted a search and the only coverage of the show are brief announcements like the one in the NYT. A one sentence description is not significant coverage. The source's that you've added do not contribute to notability. The National Geographic sources are not independent and TV Guide is a one sentence description with links to find where to watch the show online.One way to establish notability would be to provide the three best sources that you can find. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 17:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding new sources that have been added: Broadway World is a NatGeo press release; OC Register has only three sentences about Going Ape: "This three-part series examines how similar human behavior is to that of our primate cousins. The show uses hidden cameras, social experiments and footage of apes and monkeys in the wild to show how human social behavior mirrors that of other species."; and Gizmodo is one sentence followed by a couple paragraphs quoting from a NatGeo press release description of the show.I will also add that I conducted my WP:BEFORE search on Google, Google News, and Newspapers.com, and the only sources I could find were one or two sentence TV Guide-type listings in newspapers, similar to the NYT. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 20:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Even with the newly added citations, it seems to fail GNG. Nearly all of the sources (other than PRs) make brief mentions of the show. It lacks in-depth independent analysis/coverage from a reliable major pub. X ( talk) 19:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to List of National Geographic original programming. Fails WP:GNG as a standalone article. Available independent sources are only short descriptions from TV listings, not significant coverage. Jfire ( talk) 21:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Spoiled child
- Spoiled child ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is unencyclopaedic mess of original research. This simply does not belong here. This needs WP:TNT at the very least. TarnishedPath talk 03:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. TarnishedPath talk 03:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I think, rename to something like Spoiling (parenting). Definitely A very notable concept there, must be fixable. Hyperbolick ( talk) 06:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:NOTEVERYTHING This doesn't stop at defining the subject, but sections of "Potential causes", "Differential diagnosis", "Prevention", " Treatment" . Wikipedia should not be giving medical definitions and possible ways to handle it. — Maile ( talk) 19:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)- Keep per Hyperbolick
- Perfecnot ( talk) 03:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, this concept is very notable. While it's true this article in its current state is essentially just someones opinion piece, and contains what is likely their own observations, it's not unfixable, we should keep this article, and edit it into an acceptable place. Samoht27 ( talk) 16:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to a lack of keep rationale. It'd be helpful if someone could how this concept is supposedly notable and why we shouldn't WP:TNT.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)- Would comment as well, not necessarily strictly psychological, additionally a term in literature and history. Hyperbolick ( talk) 18:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
| Points of interest related to
Behavioural sciences on Wikipedia: Category |
| Points of interest related to
Cognitive science on Wikipedia: Category – WikiProject – Alerts – To-do |
| Points of interest related to
Psychology on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style |
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.
- Note that 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 links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Behavioural science.
- 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:| watch |
See also:
Science-related deletions and
Social science-related deletions.
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.
Going Ape
- Going Ape ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was previously deleted after an expired PROD. I could not find significant coverage of this documentary in reliable sources. I could not find any critical reviews. The New York Times source states, in full: "This three-part series looks at the way humans mimic chimpanzee behavior, starting with the power walk and dominance posture of the alpha male." The Futon Critic is a press release. A redirect to National Geographic Channel might be appropriate. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 03:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Animal, Science, Behavioural science, Psychology, and Social science. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 03:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The article should probably be marked as a stub in need for more references. As a National Geographic TV show featuring renowned primatologist and presenter Charlotte Uhlenbroek, it must have had coverage and reviews in media. The New York Times link is an example.
JohnMizuki (
talk) 11:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @ JohnMizuki, I conducted a search and the only coverage of the show are brief announcements like the one in the NYT. A one sentence description is not significant coverage. The source's that you've added do not contribute to notability. The National Geographic sources are not independent and TV Guide is a one sentence description with links to find where to watch the show online.One way to establish notability would be to provide the three best sources that you can find. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 17:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding new sources that have been added: Broadway World is a NatGeo press release; OC Register has only three sentences about Going Ape: "This three-part series examines how similar human behavior is to that of our primate cousins. The show uses hidden cameras, social experiments and footage of apes and monkeys in the wild to show how human social behavior mirrors that of other species."; and Gizmodo is one sentence followed by a couple paragraphs quoting from a NatGeo press release description of the show.I will also add that I conducted my WP:BEFORE search on Google, Google News, and Newspapers.com, and the only sources I could find were one or two sentence TV Guide-type listings in newspapers, similar to the NYT. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 20:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Even with the newly added citations, it seems to fail GNG. Nearly all of the sources (other than PRs) make brief mentions of the show. It lacks in-depth independent analysis/coverage from a reliable major pub. X ( talk) 19:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to List of National Geographic original programming. Fails WP:GNG as a standalone article. Available independent sources are only short descriptions from TV listings, not significant coverage. Jfire ( talk) 21:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Spoiled child
- Spoiled child ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is unencyclopaedic mess of original research. This simply does not belong here. This needs WP:TNT at the very least. TarnishedPath talk 03:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. TarnishedPath talk 03:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I think, rename to something like Spoiling (parenting). Definitely A very notable concept there, must be fixable. Hyperbolick ( talk) 06:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:NOTEVERYTHING This doesn't stop at defining the subject, but sections of "Potential causes", "Differential diagnosis", "Prevention", " Treatment" . Wikipedia should not be giving medical definitions and possible ways to handle it. — Maile ( talk) 19:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)- Keep per Hyperbolick
- Perfecnot ( talk) 03:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, this concept is very notable. While it's true this article in its current state is essentially just someones opinion piece, and contains what is likely their own observations, it's not unfixable, we should keep this article, and edit it into an acceptable place. Samoht27 ( talk) 16:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to a lack of keep rationale. It'd be helpful if someone could how this concept is supposedly notable and why we shouldn't WP:TNT.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)- Would comment as well, not necessarily strictly psychological, additionally a term in literature and history. Hyperbolick ( talk) 18:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)