Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regality theory

Regality 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)

The article appears to have been created by the author of the theory, and while published in academic journals, they're ones of low impact, and in particular, this subject doesn't seem to have any other authors cite or reference it. I believe it's a pet theory, not really approaching the level of established utility that warrants encyclopedia coverage. Upon further consideration: I think WP:FRINGE is the relevant guideline. i kan reed (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not necessarily fringe, but it is original research. Fog's papers have few/zero citations and I can't find anyone else discussing the topic, at least not under that name. Until the work is assessed by independent scholars, it doesn't belong here. WP:GNG is not met as the only in-depth source is Fog thus failing the requirement for multiple in-depth sources. SpinningSpark 22:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep. "original research" is defined as material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. The article is citing four primary sources and two secondary sources dealing with precisely the theory of the article, and many other sources dealing with closely related theories. All the sources are in well respected peer-reviewed journals or by well reputed book publishers. The article is serious, and not promotional. The work has indeed been assessed by independent scholars, cited in the article, who find it important and useful. Agnerf (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even looked at it? I think this is a very interesting theory and it tells a lot about the world today. It has a lot of applications that are documented with many examples from around the world. This is more important in my opinion than counting references. I think it should stay on wikipedia. Fabio Donatini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.146.216.31 (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have looked at it. I don't think my concerns above reflect an absence of understanding, just concern about the encyclopedic value of it. There's a lot of papers out there that posit interesting theory, with some kind of archetypal analysis. Such conventions become things that should be documented in an encyclopedia when they are either cited frequently and reused broadly within a field, or become part of pop-psychology and are used widely within lay discussion. i kan reed (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]