Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Identity control theory


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Identity control theory

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article seems to go in great detail about a single scientist's theory of identity in Sociology. It doesn't establish any notability, goes into irrelevant technical detail and background information, relies heavily on a single source by the creator of the theory (Peter Burke), and the sub-section on Peter Burke seems like self-promotion. This article has existed for a long time without significant improvement. Until there are sources that demonstrate this isn't original research, it should be deleted. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about, for starters,
 * ? It even has a picture, on page 125.  Or you can read about Identity Control Theory on pages 221–224 of
 * . Or you can read the "Another View of Identity Control" section of
 * . Or you can read the "Identity Control Theory" section on pages 119–120 of
 * . This is far from being original research with no independent sources at all. Uncle G (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because there are no parenthetical referencing or footnotes for the references cited, it was difficult to tell whether the works cited specifically mention Identity control theory or whether they were just cited for information related to the theory. If this is a new but prominent theory in Sociology and Social Psychology, and not merely the work of one scientist that has yet to be accepted, it should be kept but definitely re-written. Based on what you've just said, assuming the sources you cited are legitimate, I agree with you: it should be kept but re-written. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because there are no parenthetical referencing or footnotes for the references cited &mdash; False.  I refer you to the first sentence of the "functions" section of the article for just one example of many:"The functions of coping resposes are to reduce stress; they help restore an equilibrium (Foulton, 1982)."See that "(Foulton, 1982)" there?  That's a parenthetical cross-reference to one of the works cited in the references section.  Uncle G (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral for the time being, but I'm wondering what influence WP:NOT PAPER has here. Policy regarding scientific journals and research papers states: "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic." It would be nice if the article started "Identity control theory is..." because I cannot figure it out. Do any of the above references explicitly state what it is? Location (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. They all do.  But you needn't take my word for it.  I cited them to be read.  Uncle G (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I don't have access to the references and I cannot find it explicitly stated in the one online link, perhaps you could rewrite the introductory sentence with "Identity control theory is..." Just one sentence. Location (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize how easy it is to access these references online. Let's see what I can do with the introduction. Location (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite - My understanding of WP:NOT PAPER is to do with the way the article is written as opposed to the sources. Using published scientific papers is fine under WP:RS. The article demonstrates notability and all that jazz so I'm sure it should be kept. However Location is write to say it is written to a standard in the area that most readers will not be at -- Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 14:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve and source, maybe one scientist's idea but Google Scholar doesn't come empty, 1. Instead of discussing about deleting why we don't fix and expand the article including all these academic sources? --Jmundo (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources indicate the theory has gained notice. Improve or rewrite, but nothing for AfD to do. Yob  Mod  15:49, 17 August 2009 (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.
 * Keep but rewrite - My understanding of WP:NOT PAPER is to do with the way the article is written as opposed to the sources. Using published scientific papers is fine under WP:RS. The article demonstrates notability and all that jazz so I'm sure it should be kept. However Location is write to say it is written to a standard in the area that most readers will not be at -- Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 14:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve and source, maybe one scientist's idea but Google Scholar doesn't come empty, 1. Instead of discussing about deleting why we don't fix and expand the article including all these academic sources? --Jmundo (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources indicate the theory has gained notice. Improve or rewrite, but nothing for AfD to do. Yob  Mod  15:49, 17 August 2009 (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.