Talk:Willpower paradox

don't delete the article ...
If you do a web search for "willpower paradox", you'll see several sources discussing it using this term. Maybe there aren't enough that use this specific term... but nevertheless describe the same concept. In which case we could either move the article to a different name... or accept that people have different names for the concept and use this one. But if the concept is notable, then it's totally reasonable to have an article. Eh? Also, Qwyrxian if you look at the history of this article on Wikipedia, you'll see that it's been in article-space for a year now. groupuscule (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since anyone is allowed to remove a proposed deletion suggestion, I've removed it on your behalf. Could you please provide some other reliable sources that describe this concept? Note that if they don't use the term, we'll need a third source that actually links the first two concepts together. In other words, we can't use our own analysis to decide that two concepts are the same--we must have reliable sources that explicitly show that they are the same. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I guess maybe the Scientific American article is really the main entity to introduce the concept under this term. If for that reason you don't think it's appropriate to have an article just about this topic, maybe the content (including the sources that were previously on the page here) would belong as a section of Willpower Self-control or Motivation or something. groupuscule (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I remember, the primary objection was to the phrase "Willpower paradox" as a title. Is "Willpower as a paradox" as a title agreeable to all? Kgashok (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The title isn't the objection at all. The objection is that it looks like the author(s) of this article picked up several different research works that all are somewhat related to willpower or self-control, and decided that they are all referring to the same concept. That is what Wikipedia calls original research. We need additional sources (in this case, by far the best source would be a scientific review article or a high quality academic book) that shows that these do all, in fact, refer to the same thing. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why isn't the UI study good enough? In his article http://www.forksoverknives.com/does-willpower-hold-the-key-to-your-success/, Dr Leslie Ph.D offers this: The reasons for these results are still a little unclear, but Dr. Senay can see patterns emerging. When we “use our willpower” toward a goal, we can quickly feel guilty and embarrassed if we start to fall short. If, on the other hand, we keep an open mind about what we might accomplish, we feel like any positive moves we make are getting us ahead of expectations and thus are “wins.” Kgashok (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Because, per WP:GNG, we need 2 or more sources on a subject for it to be notable enough for its own article. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Michael Taleff has echoed virtually the same thing in the Counselor Magazine. That counts as two. Right? Kgashok (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also: "The Willpower Paradox (Wray Herbert in Scientific American) and Motivating Goal-Directed Behavior Through Introspective Self-Talk: The Role of the Interrogative Form of Simple Future Tense (Senay, Albarracín & Noguchi in Psychological Science). groupuscule (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)