Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centeredness 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Centeredness Theory

[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)

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Part of a promotional walled garden around Zephyr Bloch-Jorgensen. Mix of promo, personal essay and original research. Many references about related facts that have no direct comnnection to this theory. Connected back to the theory in an original synthesis.

Look at "The more a person does this, the more they can maintain centeredness despite exposure to trauma and adversity, leading to greater resilience.[1][15][16][17]". Source 1 is primary. Source 15 is a project in which an originator of this thoery is involved so is not independent. And it makes no mention of centeredness let alone this theory. Source 16 contains comments an originator of this theory but makes no mention of centeredness let alone this theory. This source was published years before the theory was proposed Source 17 is an essay on resiliance that makes no mention of centeredness let alone this theory. This sort of primary or unconeccted sourcing occurs throughout.

This theory has gained no traction in the broader community. 9 cites shown on Google Scholar for the paper. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pop-psych is a high-citation field so the low citation numbers mentioned in the nomination are telling. This article is heavily referenced but most or all of the references appear to either be non-independent (e.g. the ones by Block-Jorgensen), background rather than on-topic (e.g. all the ones published before 2010), or are mostly irrelevant and mention the subject only in passing (e.g. reference 2, a book review by Rimke Groenewold). Searching the academic literature found little better. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG, and the nominator's promotional concerns appear to be warranted. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with all the above. We have standards for the referencing of medical topics, which this is a long, long way from meeting. Even if notability could be established, a total rewrite to improve clarity and remove promotionalism would be necessary. The invocations of "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" and "catastrophe theory" are emblematic of pop-psych glurge, appropriating the language of mathematical science in order to make trivialities sound profound. This encyclopedia should not be a platform for such antics. XOR'easter (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom and the !votes above, doesn't meet our guidelines for establishing notability and given the walled garden of related articles, seems designed to promote the theory and lend credence to it and its promoters. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Last month I removed a lot of material from this article. I agree with Highking this article is jut promoting a theory. No serious psychologist would call something a "meta-analysis profile" as meta-analysis is a statistical method. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:26, 17 August 2022 (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.