- 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. — TKD::Talk 08:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Superoptimism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Violation of WP:OR This article was created by one of the two authors of the book cited as a reference. He left his name off the 'author' list. The book itself was published by a press that seems to only have this book on its list. The term 'superoptimism' does exist in psychology, where it seems to be used to refer to something likely to get drug addicts and criminals in trouble - not the topic of this article. Anarchia 11:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Though I agree that this ought to have more sources than one that has royalties associated with it, as you point out, this is used in psychology. It reminds me of this one guy who recently nominated an article for deletion-- he said it was "a win/win situation" because if it was a good concept, it improved, and if it was a bad concept, it was removed. Mandsford 12:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - original research; not notable; COI. Han-Kwang (t) 14:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR and essay. The subject that is notable is not the subject being discussed. Only the title is the same. DGG (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not notable. No secondary sources have been provided to support the inclusion of this article. Banno 23:02, 14 September 2007 (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.