Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-purchase rationalization


 * 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 redirect to choice-supportive bias.  Sandstein  14:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Post-purchase rationalization

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no evidence that this concept has any general recognition or notability. The sole cited source deals with related issues, but does not mention Post-purchase rationalization at all. The talk page shows that several editors have questioned whether this is notable, and whether it's original "research", at various times from 2007 on. (A deletion proposal (PROD) in January 2016 was removed without any reason being given.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you opt for deletion so we can move it over to Wikiversity. -- Jtneill - Talk 22:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)



 References
 * Comment – Below are some sources. North America1000 15:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Art of Music Production
 * The Christian Science Monitor


 * Leaning delete – unless more sources can be found. North America1000 15:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect, but I'm not sure which target - So here's the thing. This is a pop psychology term for a particular type of choice-supportive bias. In the academic literature (consumer/marketing research, mostly), it's typically called "post-decision evaluation" or "post-decision product evaluation". Upon discovering this, I started to revise the article to be framed as such, but found that I had more or less scrapped the whole thing and started over. So I did just that, and created Draft:Post-decision product evaluation (in a very stubby state currently). The more I dug, though, the more I was unsure there's all that much to say about this subject beyond the phenomenon of choice-supportive bias in general. The idea is that when we're personally invested in a decision, we're more sympathetic to stuff that says "good job" than stuff that says "wrong one". So it's redirect for sure, and not merge, because it seems like a likely search term, but there's nothing useful to merge. I'm just torn as to whether it's worth pursuing Draft:Post-decision product evaluation and redirecting there, or whether we should just nix that draft and redirect to choice-supportive bias. Pinging participants for thoughts:  &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 18:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Week keep. This is a poorly written and barely referenced stub, but a simple look at the find sources tool above shows there are sources (books, news, scholarly articles). The term is defined and used. I am not sure if this should be redirected to choice-supportive bias or kept, but I do oppose outright deletion. The term is not ORish and this could be salvaged. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Choice-supportive bias with a small mention; it is a mere application of it. I see little need for a full article, and the term exists. Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Choice-supportive bias as suggested above. It's a type of a thing. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect at best for now. SwisterTwister   talk  06:32, 28 April 2016 (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.