Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future self

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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Future self

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is more than covered at Self-concept and anything not can probably be merged however this is a massive essay and what I'd expect to see handed into a teacher and not a Wikipedia article. Praxidicae (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I reverted this back to the redirect to Self-concept as an unneeded fork. The original author reverted again but later moved it to draft before moving it back to main space less than 3 hours later with no good explanation. It is a wholesale duplication of Self concept. Self concept has benefited from the contributions of a wide range of editors. This is significantly less well written, attempts to cover the same ground, but reads like a college level thesis. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The contemporary psychological research on the future self is not covered on the self-concept page. The psychological theories and applications are distinct and the psychological literatures for the two topics have essentially no overlap. The sources of the future self article are entirely from top peer-reviewed psychology and consumer behavior journals. I am a new contributor and will edit the article to have encyclopedic style. I wrote on both your talk pages explaining why I reverted your redirects. I am greatly looking forward to improving this article and appreciate your input. JSRpsych (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC) — JSRpsych (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Self-concept because both terms are notable. desmay (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is clearly notable and the nomination provides no reason to delete. The self-concept article is broader in that it covers the past, present and future. That article is quite large and so it is reasonable to cover one of these aspects in detail per WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT. Andrew D. (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per OP's well-reasoned rationale. Maybe merge some of the contents if they're not redundant and are properly sourced/written. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/selective merge while this article is quite large, its length is partially due to its constant repetition of the same claims over and over again, as well as its detailed presentation of multiple different studies that all have very similar results. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reading through both Future self and Self-concept, the former seems like a valid independent subject. Merging the two would result in issues with undue weight. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the claim that Self-concept covers this subject is utter fantasy. The body of the article does not have the word future anywhere in it. Alright, the lead has four mentions of future self in it, so presumably the article is supposed to include this subject, but it actually doesn't. Having said that, Future self is horribly essay-like and needs a lot of cleanup. Possibly there should only be one article, but a lot of work and thought needs to go into that first. It won't be resolved at this AfD. SpinningSpark 00:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.