Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary theory of the self


 * 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Evolutionary theory of the self

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Basically, this is a random WP:COATRACK based on the work of one single group (Munevar et al), which was published in a predatory journal. This research is completely not notable, and even if the broad topic somehow was, WP:TNT applies. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete The work has no wiki-notability, and much of the text was dumped here from the paper in the predatory journal itself. It's technically not a copyvio since their license looks to be compatible (CC BY 3.0), but it's still not behavior we should reward. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep for now article needs an editor to trim. Stanford, Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, Further Research, Imprint Academic additional related topics exist like Evolution theory of Motivation We have to make sure this article is not WP:SYNTH. Lightburst (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * nothing in this article is salvageable. WP:TNT applies. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * it could use an ambitious editor Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Or a WP:REDLINK. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It was literally copy-and-pasted from an article in a predatory journal that nobody has paid attention to. It's too lazy even to be WP:SYNTH. It does not deserve to exist here. A smattering of academic books or websites with vaguely similar names does not change that. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is copyvio and the work of an SPA it should be speedy deleted. Why are we at AfD where I am asked to assess the quality of sources which WP:NEXIST? Lightburst (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete This is original research. It may be published original research, but having been published in a predatory journal (and yes, this is a slightly worked-over copy & paste of the entire article), it must be treated just like any other private production that has not been peer-reviewed to acceptable standards. We wouldn't retain this if it had been built in draft space, and we shouldn't retain it just because the draft space happens to be a pay-for-publication journal outlet. - Further, being in classic essay argumentation style isn't necessarily a delete reason in itself, but it certainly doesn't do it any favours. Lazy copy of material from a non-peer-reviewed article that would require a complete workover just to look acceptable? Nope. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT, hat tip to . This is a sloppy mix of original research and an op-ed. I'm sure the creator and editors who wrote this meant well, but this is not even wrong. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2019 (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.