Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T.O.T.E.


 * 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 Userfy. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric  08:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

T.O.T.E.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unsourced, probably original research, strong whiff of fringeness and inappropriate synthesis. Famous dog   (c) 11:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Famous  dog   (c) 12:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Appears to be an essay written by someone who read the book. Not inherently notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I was only able to find a few mentions of it online. This could possibly have a sentence in another article, but is not notable enough for an article. Natureium (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or Move Agree that the article is not well sourced, but from some quick searching TOTE doesn't seem to be a fringe topic. It appears to be a model commonly used presented in fields like psychology and education and is described in introductory textbooks. There are plenty of possible citations from which to add context/references to be found in a Google Books search for: TOTE psychology. It also seems like the underlying work, Plans and the Structure of Behavior, is an influential work with over 8,000 citations on Google Scholar and sources like this indicating its status as a pioneering work for developing other models. Quercusechinus (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You have made a good argument for having an article on Plans and the Structure of Behavior, but I looked at one of the first books you link to above and it literally says: "the book had great success... as it happened, the TOTE unit itself did not establish itself as a technical term..." That is literally the first of your references I looked at and it basically says "this isn't a widely used term". In this widely-used psychology textbook, the TOTE is basically a historical footnote. Famous  dog   (c) 07:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I'm alright with the idea of moving/re-frameing this to be an article about the book.Quercusechinus (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And be brief. For the love of G--, be brief!
 * Userfy There's not enough here to justify a merge/redirect, but the article could be improved by the author for subsequent relisting. Wolfson5 (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baby miss fortune 11:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Userfy seems best, following above discussion. While the book using the term appears to be worth an article, it doesn't look like the term itself is sufficiently well known/used. Suggest keeping this material around for a possible book article while removing it from article space. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:35, 6 December 2017 (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.