Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary psychology of Personality

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 userfy. Accordingly I've moved the page to user:Psyc452-BFrancisco/Evolutionary psychology of Personality and left a message at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Evolutionary psychology / Psyc452. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary psychology of Personality[edit]

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

Essay, appears to be original research. InShaneee (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:OR content fork of Evolutionary psychology and Big Five personality traits. See also this discussion Stuartyeates (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I applaud students for wanting to contribute to Wikipedia. While their course may be assessed by their instructor based on a rubric, Wikipedia editing also has a rubric for what is and is not acceptable. It seems unfortunate that the instructor did not provide students with a rubric for contributing to Wikipedia that discussed article issues. This appears to be original research. --LauraHale (talk) 07:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I do not see evidence provided for why and when this article uses original research. Wikipedia states that OR is "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exists." All ideas and assertions in the article come from published, academic sources and research articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc452-BFrancisco (talk • contribs) 10:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The writers have listened to your concerns and have made corrections to better the page. They will continue to do so in order for this page to stay up. Please keep in mind this is a sub-section of Evolutionary Psychology focusing on Personality from an evolutionary perspective in specific detail. This article might contain content that is already discussed on Wikipedia, but it offers an alternative way of incorporating that content by specifically tying it into Personality from an evolutionary psychological perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: Psyc452-NLevy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Do Not Delete All information is cited, and all sources relate directly to the material presented. The point of view is neutral and verifiable. It is in accordance with the guidelines of "No original research". The writing has also been improved to be more encyclopedic and paragraphs are written in prose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc452-LChen (talk • contribs) 00:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are three university students all responding to this article from the same class. Their comments should be treated as only ONE, not three, per WP:MEAT. It should also be noted these students likely have a WP:COI regarding this article because the articles involve their own coursework. --LauraHale (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how man or how few they are, or what their COI is, the argument should be judged on its merits. This is not a count of Votes. We expect the author(s) of an article to defend it here--they almost invariably do, and they should not be criticized for it. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

userify. As far as I can tell, most of the content here merely duplicates at an extremely elementary level the information already found in many WP articles on evolutionary psychology. The exception is that the article seems to emphasise and rely on the application of one particular theory of personality, based on one particular source that uses it. This is not likely to be a representative view. I suggest that using a topic as extremely broad as this as a topic for a new WP article in an education program was not a good idea.

I can see no evidence that this course has taken advantage of any of the facilities provided by our educational program. Who is the instructor? Who is the online ambassador? It is normally their role to check topics in advance.

The only reason I am saying userify instead of delete, is that the academic term is not yet over (assuming this is a spring 2013 course),and thee is therefore a prospect of improvement, if the students will get some guidance. I urger the editors who have been writing the article to urge their instructor to get in contact with the program -- one possible place to start is at WP:Education noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userify or Move to talk page of big five article: Content on evolutionary psychology of Personality is quite general, not very well sourced, and already covered in other articles (WP:cfork). The exception is the big five section which has some potential (even if only based in a single source), and could maybe be integrated in that article as a summary and/or in the specific articles of each of the factors.--Garrondo (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2013 (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.