Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reification and perspective taking

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. Although more participation would have been helpful, the arguments for deletion were persuasive and no editor favored keeping the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reification and perspective taking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Reads like an essay and possibly contains original reasearch. DrStrauss talk 11:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I'd go a step beyond the nominator and say that it reads, not just like an essay, but like a copyvio, and of undistinguished, disorganized, largely content-free prose. What the end of the paragraph has to do with any sense of reification is unclear. Not only is it OR, it's unsuccessful OR. XOR'easter (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum – The article was tagged as needing improvement in multiple regards in November 2014, with additional tags in October 2015. An editor suggested deletion at that point. It's overdue now. XOR'easter (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2017 (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.