Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-reflection


 * 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. Discussions may be continued on the article's talk page for content focus, and in the case of failure to reach a consensus, there is no prejudice against an early re-nom. (non-admin closure) Lourdes  04:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Self-reflection

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is entirely uncited waffle. The three cites it has add nothing relevant (one for a description of a painting and two for a single very short quote from Descartes). Should be replaced with a redirect to the closely related introspection. Would be nice if someone did a proper job on this but in the meantime a redirect to introspection is much better than the current junk. None of the existing text is usable. Penbat (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination is self-contradictory, stating that the article is entirely uncited but that there are three cites. The article is indeed in need of improvement but this is done by ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy.  And, to demonstrate the notability of the topic, here's a selection of sources:
 * Neural correlates of self‐reflection
 * The self-reflection and insight scale: A new measure of private self-consciousness
 * A three‐step method of self‐reflection using reflective journal writing
 * Self‐reflection in critical social work practice: subjectivity and the possibilities of resistance
 * College physics students' epistemological self-reflection and its relationship to conceptual learning
 * Empathy and the self-absorption paradox: Support for the distinction between self-rumination and self-reflection
 * Self-reflection as an element of professionalism
 * Through the one-way mirror: The limits of experimental self-reflection.
 * The social basis of self-reflection
 * Self-reflexivity in Literature
 * Andrew D. (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment There has been a "This article needs additional citations for verification" tag for this article since February 2014 and none have been forthcoming. Obviously there are three cites but as I have explained they are worthless. If you want to do this article properly feel free but you will find all of the existing text worthless and you will be hard pushed to differentiate it from introspection to which I suggest a redirect is made. 98% of the existing text could justifiably be deleted right now as it is uncited. The other 2% is cited but is irrelevant to the subject so that can justifiably be deleted as well.--Penbat (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I too wonder how it differs from introspection. Regarding "Self-reflexivity in Literature," I believe that would be at least as much works that reflect, rather than people? On that, I see we do have Self-reference, too. And, more formally, Metafiction, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Per the OED,
 * "Introspection, n, – The action of looking within, or into one's own mind; examination or observation of one's own thoughts, feelings, or mental state."
 * "Self-reflection, n. – Reflection, meditation, or serious thought as to one's character, actions, motives, etc."
 * The former is concerned only with one's inner life or mind while the latter is a contemplation of all aspects of oneself. For example, it is interesting to find that self-reflection is repeatedly used as a technique in medical training, in which student medics and nurses review their experiences and values as a form of professional development.  See “What's Important to You?”: The Use of Narratives To Promote Self-Reflection and To Understand the Experiences of Medical Residents.  There are, of course, many other similar concepts such as self-esteem, self-awareness, self-consciousness, &c.  These are important topics but difficult to do well.  But notice that they are all blue links and have separate pages.  Crude deletion has no place in our development of such pages. Andrew D. (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have already explained that in principle I am happy to let someone make a proper job of it. It is not "crude deletion", it is a redirect to the related introspection in the meantime so obviously it would not be a redlink. There has been absolutely no improvement in this article for years. If you have the motivation to do a proper job good for you. But it is best to ditch all the existing text as it is 100% junk and instead try to produce something reasonable from scratch in a sandbox. Changing this article to a redirect is not a life sentence, it could be converted back to an article if and when "self-reflection" is ever done properly. But in the meantime a redirect is better than keeping the existing junk. The words "reflection" or "self-reflection" barely even appear in the existing text.--Penbat (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:Andrew Davidson. --Fixuture (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a fundamental misunderstanding here which I did try to explain. Andrew Davidson explained at length that self-awareness is an important subject and related subjects are blue linked. I completely agree. But that is totally irrelevant to the points I have raised above:
 * the fact that the existing text in the article is 100% junk
 * the fact that introspection is a closely related subject and a redirect to introspection is preferable to the existing junk text which can be justifiably be deleted anyway as 98% is uncited and the cited 2% is not relevant to the subject.
 * the fact that nobody has bothered to improve this article for years inspite of having one article-wide banner tag plus ten inline tags.
 * the fact that if the day ever came that someone wanted to make a proper job of it, it would be dead easy to revert it back from a redirect to a separate "self awareness" article.
 * the fact that I clearly explained why this is not a proposed "crude deletion".
 * None of the existing self-awareness text serves any purpose. If this article were ever to be done properly it needs to be done from scratch in a sandbox.
 * Fixuture needs to explain his case further rather than just saying "Keep per User:Andrew Davidson" and address the points I made after Andrew Davidson.
 * --Penbat (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If "self-reflection" as it stands was submitted as a new article for creation under WP:CREATE and WP:AFCP it would fail by a mile.--Penbat (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The article needs a thorough overhaul at the very least, but there is a notable distinction between reflection and introspection, partly along the lines of Andrew D.'s statement, but also partly along more philosophical lines. The Library of Congress uses two distinct subject headings for Reflection (Philosophy) and Introspection.  Someone who wants to improve this article and distinguish it from the latter article may want to seek out books cataloged under the former one. Alternatively, they may want to consult the Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Phenomenology article  "Phenomenological method: reflection, introspection, and skepticism", which argues for a distinction between reflection and introspection.  (If the article develops along those lines, it might be usefully retitled "Reflection (Philosophy)" or "Philosophical reflection" rather than "Self-reflection".) JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely fine. All we need is someone with the willingness to do the work which has not been apparent for years. I suspect that, as Andrew D. has made a big issue of this, it is most likely down to him to do the work. But whatever, I maintain that none of the existing text is usable and it needs to be developed from scratch with a clean slate in a sandbox. It is way beyond editing policy.--Penbat (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your comments relate to "reflection" not "self-reflection". How do they differ?--Penbat (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Yes the current article has issues, but the topic is important in philosophy and psychology and history, and sources can be found. Not sure if the name of the article might be changed (?).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:43, 3 September 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.