Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parental acceptance-rejection theory
- 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. Sandstein 10:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Parental acceptance-rejection theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This user is no longer active. The primary author from the references would like to write a more appropriate page re:PARTheory Rohner Research (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment—I notified the nominator on his/her talk page that his/her username may create the appearance of a conflict of interest regarding this nomination, and offered to advise if necessary.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions Nominator, what do you mean? This is an article, not a userpage, so there's no user in question who is or is not active. As well, why do you need to have the article deleted if you want to write a new one? It's possible just to do a rewrite. Nyttend (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note—Orange Mike indeffed the nominator. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Parental_acceptance-rejection_theory_and_User:Rohner_Research and User talk:Rohner Research for details.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks sufficient WP:RS to meet WP:GNG … 12 of the 15 references are from Rohner, the creator of the theory (hardly "independent"), and 11 are just different pages in the same work. Happy Editing! — 72.75.52.11 (talk · contribs) 02:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent reliable third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2011 (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.