Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Core Issue-Defense Paradigm


 * 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 Adam Cuerden talk 22:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Core Issue-Defense Paradigm

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This looks like either a original analysis essay or a novel synthesis. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The content needs trimming down, but the work seems to be based on an article published in the Psychiatric Times along with some additional material from a self-published document by the same author, which (as it was written by a previously-published professional researcher) is also a reliable source. JulesH 21:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Delete as non-notable. It seems all mentions of this "paradigm" are from a single author, David Berger, and his website JapanPsychiatrist.com.  Article was created and written pretty much exclusively by Menicos, a single-purpose account whose only edits are this article and the creation and editing of the Douglas Berger article (which I think also requires deletion).  The previously mentioned Psychiatric Times article, also written by Berger, which is the only non-trivial, non-self-published source given, contains some of the same ideas but in no way mentions anything called "Core Issue-Defense Paradigm" or similar.  Ford MF 04:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, a psych theory needs to be used and cited by others to be notable. This isn't. --Bejnar 05:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fordmadoxfraud. Recreate if it ends up being used by others. JJL 17:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A decent article on a contemporary psychological theory. Very much in line with other contemporary theories. The single-purpose account argument can hardly be relavent here and does not assume good faith. 'Psychiatric Times' is not a vehicle for self-publishing by Berger. Journals in the field of psychology are generally peer reviewed, and articles included in them are not there for the same reasons that an article might show up in something like 'The Enquirer' or 'Cosmopolitan'. If a psychological theory needed to be cited by others to be notable we would know almost nothing in the field of psychology. Theories are usually named by the person writing the initial articles, and are then discussed by professionals and used as the basis of other theories. Most of psychology is theoretical, and practitioners have to apply theory on a case by case basis as seems useful at the time. Doesn't need trimming. More likely it needs more wiki or web links to other theories so people will better understand it in context. Aspenocean 23:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't say the Psychiatric Times article was self-publishing, I said it does not EVEN ONCE mention  "Core Issue-Defense Paradigm".  It's not a real citation.  Ford MF 16:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. As far as your suggestion of "more wiki"...well, "Core Issue-Defense Paradigm" yields only ten unique ghits: one is wikipedia, the other nine are either self-published on Berger's website, mirrors of that site, and the home pages of the place Berger works at.  Linking it to other theories when there are no secondary sources to base that on is clearly original research.  Ford MF 16:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment An article doesn't have to mention a theory by name to provide background to the concepts leading to the formation of that theory. It is a real reference. The number of google hits isn't terribly important, particularly in such a specialized field. As I said before, these things show up in professional, peer reviewed journals. The two other references listed were not written by Berger and are not trivial. Aspenocean 00:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Further See Also sections that relate to the article are not original research, and I don't think articles should be re-listed for deletion when they have not been voted for deletion in a previous nomination as this one has. Aspenocean 01:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The two other non-trival works cited do not mention the "Core Issue-Defense Paradigm". This article is an attempt to create a label for a pre-existing body of work which already has more than enough labels. --Bejnar 20:51, 5 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.