Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regality 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 delete. Vanamonde (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Regality theory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article appears to have been created by the author of the theory, and while published in academic journals, they're ones of low impact, and in particular, this subject doesn't seem to have any other authors cite or reference it. I believe it's a pet theory, not really approaching the level of established utility that warrants encyclopedia coverage. Upon further consideration: I think WP:FRINGE is the relevant guideline. i kan reed (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not necessarily fringe, but it is original research.  Fog's papers have few/zero citations and I can't find anyone else discussing the topic, at least not under that name.  Until the work is assessed by independent scholars, it doesn't belong here.  WP:GNG is not met as the only in-depth source is Fog thus failing the requirement for multiple in-depth sources. SpinningSpark 22:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * keep. "original research" is defined as material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. The article is citing four primary sources and two secondary sources dealing with precisely the theory of the article, and many other sources dealing with closely related theories. All the sources are in well respected peer-reviewed journals or by well reputed book publishers. The article is serious, and not promotional. The work has indeed been assessed by independent scholars, cited in the article, who find it important and useful. Agnerf (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you even looked at it? I think this is a very interesting theory and it tells a lot about the world today. It has a lot of applications that are documented with many examples from around the world. This is more important in my opinion than counting references. I think it should stay on wikipedia. Fabio Donatini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.146.216.31 (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I certainly have looked at it. I don't think my concerns above reflect an absence of understanding, just concern about the encyclopedic value of it.    There's a lot of papers out there that posit interesting theory, with some kind of archetypal analysis.  Such conventions become things that should be documented in an encyclopedia when they are either cited frequently and reused broadly within a field, or become part of pop-psychology and are used widely within lay discussion.   i kan reed (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * keep . I have added six more secondary references. I hope this satisfies your requirements. Thanks for relisting. Agnerf (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've struck your keep. You can't !vote twice. SpinningSpark 13:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody is challenging the quality of your sources (although the recently added item from WikiWikiWeb is probably not peer reviewed and dubious RS). The objection to this article is that the term "regality theory" is used only by Fog.  The rest of the sources do not use it, even by way of saying Fog has such a theory, so the accusation is that the use of these sources is OR by way of WP:SYNTH.  Can you counter this with a single source that is not associated with Fog that directly uses the term "regality theory" and gives a definition of it.  If not, at the very least the article is misnamed, but probably not suitable for a general encyclopaedia at all because it has not yet become notable enough to be discussed widely by scholars (or anybody). Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * delete None of the discussion or changes so far has prompted me to change my original assessment, and I don't know, I'd like to be explicit that I do vote delete. i kan reed (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Striking that !vote as well to be fair in my strikes. The convention is that your nomination is taken as your delete !vote.  If you still have a burning desire to bold your recommendation, put it there. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize that the varying names for the theory was the problem. The theory is called "Cultural r/k theory" and similar terms in previous publications. I have added a comment about this in the history section now. I will suggest making a redirection from "Cultural r/k theory" and "Cultural r/k selection" to Regality theory. Agnerf (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost every hit on scholar for that term was published by Fog, so same question, different name. The only one that isn't is an unpublished dissertation.  Ph.D dissertations are taken as reliable sources here once they have been published.  At the moment we are not meeting the requirements of Notability for independent reliable sources.  Papers written by Fog are not independent of a theory by Fog (perfectly ok for verifying facts, but they don't add to notability). <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 08:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The article now has eight independent secondary sources. How many do you need? Agnerf (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Which of those eight (links would be helpful) have in-depth discussion of the topic of this article? <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Mainly Van Schaik (2018), Tylor (2018), Tyler (2011) p. 73f + 292f. Agnerf (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Having gone to the trouble of obtaining the first source mentioned, I find it is not an independent piece of research at all, but a book review. A book review of a book authored by Fog.  I'm done with looking at this one now.  This page is a classic example of why conflicted editors should not write about themselves, or their own research, on Wikipedia. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 22:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry if there are different understandings of what is relevant. I think that a discussion and evaluation of the theory by a professional in the form of a book review is very relevant in the context where it appears.Agnerf (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * keep. What I love about wikipedia is that I can find relevant things here that I haven't been able to learn about from other online sources. On wikipedia I can find specialized things that aren't easily available elsewhere, and aren't part of common knowledge. That's one of the things that makes wikipedia so much more useful than previous print encyclopedias - its breadth, depth and scope. Another great thing about wikipedia is that its able to put all this knowledge in such a user friendly format, with pages linked to all other relevant pages. These things illustrate why I think the regality theory page should be kept. To me, the regality theory page illustrates what I love most about wikipedia relative to other sources. I didn't know that regality theory existed. I saw the link from the authoritarian personality page. The regality theory page was written so I could grasp its ideas rapidly even though I'm not in that field, and I found it extraordinarily relevant to what I was looking for. Only on wikipedia could this have happened.

Furthermore, the main argument for deletion is that it was created by the author of the theory. Some topics are so specialized that very few people are expert enough to create a wikipedia page for them, and those who are expert enough might have professional burdens that limit the time and inclination to edit wikipedia. So I think a case can be made for allowing the author of a specialized theory to create a wikipedia page for it under certain circumstances: if the article is clear and coherent to the nonexpert, and if there are relevant crosslinks to other wikipedia pages. I understand that you want to weed out hokey pet theories that have no soundness to them except in the authors eyes. I'll just put in my 2 cents that, to my reading of regality theory, it is more of an integration of other established theories into one meta-theory. Regality theory shows how all this other knowledge fits together into one coherent whole. There's nothing hokey about it. In fact, the statistical analysis in the referenced book (which I only knew about because of wikipedia) looks like it must make this one of the most statistically sound theory in all of social sciences. So those are all the reasons I recommend keeping it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagersmith (talk • contribs) 17:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge - This is my first time commenting on something that's up for deletion. While it is a good 'meta' gathering of related theories(Terror Management Theory, Neuropolitics, Moral foundations theory, etc.) I feared when I first read it maybe weeks ago that it counted as 'Original Research' and would/should be deleted unfortunately according to the guidelines. Maybe it could be Merged into an article that sums up said related theories. There is a 'Political psychology' article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenoC (talk • contribs) 17:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge with similar theories. I accept that no consensus can be reached here. There are now two votes for delete, three for keep, and one for merge. Therefore, I will make the following proposal.

There are several other theories of cultural dimensions that make similar findings based on very different research traditions. We can make a larger article that explains these different theories under a common heading such as cultural dimensions theories. Relevant theories that might be included are:
 * Tight and loose cultures. This theory is briefly mentioned under Michele J. Gelfand who has a new book out on the topic, but it is an old theory that has been studied by many others.
 * Cultural values, such as traditional versus secular-rational values, survival versus self-expression values, etc. This is mentioned under Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world - an article with a narrow and limited focus.
 * Authoritarianism versus egalitarianism. The article on authoritarianism describes it as a type of government, while the article on egalitarianism treats is as a political philosophy. There is no description of these two as opposite cultural trends.
 * Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory. This has its own page, and is also mentioned under Power distance. The Globe Study should also be mentioned.
 * Shalom H. Schwartz's cultural dimensions, including Hierarchy versus egalitarianism, are not mentioned in Wikipedia.
 * Cultural harshness versus softness. This theory is not covered by Wikipedia.
 * Trompenaars' model of national culture differences
 * Peter Turchin's theory of cultural asabiyya is briefly mentioned under Peter Turchin.
 * Regal versus kungic cultures, or regality theory. A short version of the present text.


 * Such an article would have significant encyclopedic value by providing an overview of the different theories, and discuss overlaps and differences between these. The Cambridge Handbook of Culture has such an overview, though more narrow []. I think Wikipedia should have it as well, of course without copying from the Cambridge Handbook of Culture.


 * This is in line with StevenoC's proposal, though I think his proposed overview-article will be too broad. But there could be links from the topics he mentions. Agnerf (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That would involve writing an entirely new article. I doubt that the closing admin will offer an opinion on that as it is not germane to this deletion discussion.  My opinion is that only dualities discussed in sources giving an overview and identifying them as belonging to the group should be included. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 12:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete a Google Scholar search for "regal kungic" (without quotes) gives 6 papers, all by Agner Fog. I assume that  is that person.  Regal/kalyptic gives similar results.  The ties to other research such as that of Peter Turchin appears to be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH; I don't think Fog's research is mentioned by Turchin.  This should be deleted. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The theory is cited by (now) ten secondary sources mentioned, mostly under names such as "cultural r/k selection theory" (but not under "regal kungic"). It is discussed and evaluated in a book review by van Schaik, discussed and further elaborated by Tyler (2011 and 2014), and applied to various areas of research by Rominek, Vidal, and Bloom.
 * There are no notability guidelines for scientific theories. WP:Notability_(books): "most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice." WP:Notability "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." My vote is keep or merge. Agnerf (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

North America, I think it is time to close the discussion and make a decision. There is no point in repeating the same arguments. Thank you for your patience. Agnerf (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.