Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Conceptual Act Model of Emotion


 * 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. Walton Assistance! 20:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The Conceptual Act Model of Emotion

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Found while patrolling candidates for speedy deletion. The given reason was: new model, not notable. This is not a valid speedy reason. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 08:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment this is part of a set of two pages created by what appears to be a single-purpose account. See Special:Contributions/Lindqukr. The pages in question are this one, and the later Conceptual-act model of emotion, which appears to have been created to fix capitalisation problems in the title. Should have been moved instead, so now we have two articles with similar content and slightly different edit histories. For notability concerns see Lisa Feldman Barrett and Talk:Lisa Feldman Barrett. The edit history over there for the article about the author of the theory, shows COI concerns were raised, the article was PRODed, and then rewritten. I have no opinions on this set of pages myself, just doing some research into what happened here. Carcharoth 13:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry, I'm not very good with all the procedures yet here in Wikipedia. I flagged that for speedy delete because I couldn't find any general references to the model and the info came from her husband. Also, the phrase "the conceptual act model of emotion' struck me more as academic marketing hype than serious research. If the model can be proved to be widely respected and accepted, I'm open to changing my vote. --SueHay 03:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Both, that is, this article and Conceptual-act model of emotion. Essentially original research, or at any rate a single-sourced article much like a cross between a scholarly paper and an ad, neither of which are appropriate for an encyclopedia. Herostratus 20:15, 2 June 2007 (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.