Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decade of Behavior


 * 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 keep. Tone 17:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Decade of Behavior

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This seems to a badly sourced article about a nickname American Psychological Association gave to the 2000s. Which, not surprisingly, apparently lacks notability. One of the references in the article doesn't even have anything to do with it and the other two are extremely questionable. So, I'm pretty sure this fails WP:GNG. Maybe instead of just deleting it the article could be merged with or redirected to American Psychological Association, but it barley seems worth it. Although, it is an option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment It was a PR initiative, but one in which multiple organizations participated, and about which independent sources exist. For example, Science reported on the early attempts to get it going . I haven't yet seriously tried to sift through the 2,100+ Google Scholar hits for the phrase, some of which I expect will be false positives, but Baumeister et al. (2007) looks pertinent. If that is the reference which the nomination describes as not having "anything to do with it", then I'm a bit confused, since it contains language like this: It seemed an extremely wise move therefore when, impressed by the success of the brain decade, APA came up with the idea of making the first decade of the new century “The Decade of Behavior.” The goal was to focus attention on the contributions of psychology toward understanding and affecting important behaviors and consequent life outcomes, thereby adding relevance, credibility, and (one hoped) big research budgets to the enterprise. This emphasis was—or at least should have been—especially welcome to social and personality psychologists, whose research programs would seem to be in a position to benefit greatly from a renewed recognition of the importance of behavior. It is now past halfway through the putative Decade of Behavior and is therefore a fair time to ask, “How's it going?” In particular, how are social and personality psychologists doing? To anticipate our answer, we think they are doing fine in many respects—but not in respect to studying behavior. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The key thing for me there was that the essay said "In particular, how are social and personality psychologists doing?" Which made it seem like the article was more about social/personality psychologists. The APA doesn't have a monopoly on everything related to behavioral psychology during that decade just because they came up with an initiative about it or whatever and I'd think for articles to count they would specifically have to be about the initiative. Not behavioral psychologists. Where it's only mentioned as a side thing. At least the other articles they actually have "Decade of Behavior" in the title. Whereas, "Psychology as the Science of Self-Reports and Finger Movements: Whatever Happened to Actual Behavior?", because again it's not about that. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I looked at Google Books coverage: 1) several pages here (50-53), a section here (can't see the second+ pages in google preview, didn't check Amazon); many scholar works like, and this was also covered by ASA's Footnotes newsletter and mentioned in passing in several others: . I think this term can be said to have entered into the history of science and passes WP:GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per identified sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.