- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like author is starting a POV article NeilN 16:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a strange article. paul klenk talk 16:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's strange about it? Hackwrench 17:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly copied from another page, with original research added, not clear what encyclopedic content is being communicated. No citations except a science-fiction reference. No indication that this is a real or significant concept in psychology or cultural debate. Unless shown otherwise, weak delete. Barno 18:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, rant, likely original research. Owen× ☎ 18:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The author removed content from the emotion page and put it on a new war on emotion page, most likely because he disagreed with its POV. The funny thing is that I agree with the author that this content does indeed represent a limited POV, nonetheless, we can arrive at the final result better through intelligent discussion than through rash provocative deletions and postings. I'd appreciate if in the future, the author would take a deep breath himself and cool down his own emotions before making changes to articles. Hackwrench's action was inappropriate, and I concur with the others that this article should be deleted. I look forward to working with Hackwrench and the other emotion authors to come to a compromise that works for everyone. Perhaps a section titled "Approaches to Emotion in Psychotherapy" would be acceptable to all parties. sallison 20:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the material from the emotion page once, and sombody regressed the page, so I moved it to a new article, where I thought it seemed fit, and addressed why it fit the topic. I am confused at the categorization of my action as rash and provocative, though and would appreciate it if Sallison were to elaborate further.
- Delete I agree with Paul - strange (and weird) article. Groeck 22:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The strongest example in modern culture is Equilibrium_(2002_film), although Vulcan (Star Trek) shows this too. The theme can be found in many fictional distopian societies.
- Delete. What I'm seeing is unsourced OR/POV essay. MCB 06:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- To elaborate at Hackwrench's request, the so called "War on Emotion" is not an actual war, but rather your personal conflict with another author. That is, unless you have some references to back up the assertion that this particular conflict stems from a conflict within the larger academic community that has been termed "The War on Emotion." If you came up with that term on your own because you were mad at the other author, and not from research, then you were acting provocatively. In short, it's what the other reviewers here are calling an unsourced OR/POV essay. I haven't seen you discuss this issue on the emotion talk page. From what I can infer from your actions, I think your point is very valid. I agree that the emotion page needs to have a much more neutral point of view, but perhaps an attempt at diplomacy is in order before resorting to a one-man-war. sallison 08:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hackwrench now appears to be making a concerted effort to turn this page from what originally appeared to be a personal attack on another author into an article on a theme that may (or may not) be considered valid by others. I would be more convinced if the author could cite some sources in hard print in addition to his web sources. In general, the move away from inflamatory discourse is commendable. I don't know if this revised article will meet the standards of the other reviewers taking part in this discussion, but at least my biggest concern regarding this particular article has been directly addressed. I would like to express my thanks to the author for his efforts in this regard. sallison 09:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Fix. The phrase (and related idea) the article is based on has substancial usage. The article doesn't explore it very well though. Even if the majority view is that the concept is silly, the article should remain - and contain POV details of why the idea's not very useful. 203.208.80.13 00:21, 4 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.