Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raison oblige 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 keep. Enough for keep, but improve thoase refs by using {{Citation}} - maybe use some browser add ons - Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Tools Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raison oblige theory

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

Delete reads like an essay, nothing to indicate that this theory is widespread, notable, or otherwise encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree the article needs work, but the term seems to be out there in a few places like here and here and the references given in the article. If someone can fix the article, great; otherwise it ~~should~~ could be userfied or put into the article incuabtor. PDCook (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —PDCook (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I created the article, its my first so I'm sorry that its not congruent with an experienced wiki writing style. I'm still working on it and will be adding to it tomorrow. (a)I will work on the style. (b) This theory is young and as such is undergoing experimentation. The creator of Raison Oblige Theory is currently challenging the evidence of self verification theory but this work is not published yet so I can't talk about it. The work that is published is little known because it needs more substantial evidence to support it's claims. If you are interested you can follow its development over the next few years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesDC (talk • contribs) 17:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, you're almost shooting yourself in the foot here. PDCook (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is, however, work published on it. Therefore, it is not original thought, merely theoretical nor unsupported. My reference to experiments I can't talk about is only to work which I can not mention in the article due to wiki rules. All young theories are undergoing testing, this isn't to say they aren't supported. Even older theories, such as self verification, still undergo testing to this date, despite a lengthy existence. The acceptance of a theory often follows substantial testing and validation processes. Therefore, after only three years of development it is not surprising that Raison Oblige Theory is not widely known about. It is, however, a supported contender to the self verification motive and thus noteworthy in wikipedia.JamesDC (talk)JamesDCJamesDC (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

keep - I've changed the style and added more to the article, including most of the references. Any advice on how to further improve the article would be greatly appreciated.JamesDC (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I know enough about the topic to tell you how to improve the article...I can only comment on formatting, layout, references, etc. You could ask someone from Wikiproject psychology to look at it. Regards, PDCook (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am part of the wikiproject psychology, and the self and identity task force. I can ensure you the content is not only valid but an exact, up to date, reflection of works on Raison Oblige Theory and Self Verification Theory. I do not think the article should have been nominated for deletion as the content fully adheres to wiki rules. However, as I said, this is my first article so any advice on formatting, layout and references would be great. I've properly referenced, re-structured and altered some of the content today. What else can be done to make it better? Any help is much appreciated. JamesDC (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2009 (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.