Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comfort zone


 * 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. Perhaps a merge discussion should be commenced. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Comfort zone

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

As is, the article should be deleted because it rehashes the content of one non-scientific source, White (2009)—which itself errs in its reference to Yerkes's work on the Dancing Mouse, and makes reference to an apparently untested "TPR" model of small-group psychology. The rest of White's citations are mostly indirect citations and citations to non-peer-reviewed sources, business leadership manuals where the context would imply psychological or sociological research reports.

Closer examination reveals that few or none of the article's current claims are actually proven. Given the overreliance on a single source, the article could very well be thinly veiled original research.

All of the above results in misleading information on the internet at large, including a significant number of mistaken citations to Yerkes sharing the same wording as the article, as well as potential careless citation to White's self-published manuscript as though it were peer-reviewed.

Alternatively to deletion, the article could be trimmed down and merged with another, on, say, flow.
 * Comment I'm torn on this one. "Comfort Zone" is CLEARLY a phrase widely used. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  I feel like there's probably a reasonably well sourced article to be written on the concept, but I'm not volunteering to do so, and I'm pretty certain it's NOT what we have now.  Maybe the best choice would be a redirect to Flow (psychology) without prejudice against recreating the article from scratch as less of a soapbox for this one interpretation? PianoDan (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, passes WP:GNG due to significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.   All of the issues highlighted by the nominator can resolved through editing.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per SailingInABathTub. Lots of sources, books, etc. about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Comfort, unless and until there is more content on this topic than a stub. BD2412  T 02:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - article isn't in great shape but looks to be capable of development. There's clearly a substantial literature on this topic following Luckner and Nadler (1997), which introduced the model, and the first of the references provided by covers enough ground and provides enough criticism to take this material out of stub territory. I'll note that the concept seems to have arisen in adventure education but there is little sign of that in the AfDed article as it stands. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.