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 keep. Consensus that there is a topic which may be appropriately covered, per our policies and guidelines, in a standalone article. Have at it Uncle G. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility assumption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Lightly sourced article from 2003. WP:NOTESSAY Natg 19 (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Special:Permalink/1062334, the very first revision of the article, was actually a start to what could have been an article on a genuine subject in existential psychotherapy. It even had a fairly solid source. The article started its downhill slide a month later and is now a truly abysmal mish-mash of entirely different and unrelated things, including an entire cargo-cult "In popular culture" section and fictional references. If this does get deleted, I'm going to request that single revision back because it would be amazing to build up properly, after 18 years, upon an article written by Kat (talk · contribs). Just that 1 revision. The rest is useless. Uncle G (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- I remain unconvinced that this is anything more than an WP:OR essay. The first revision is not sourced properly either and we can't verify that this is a legit academic/scientific doctrine.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it is; and while you cannot, I can. It tells one exactly what book to read. Neither citation templates nor the <ref/> system existed in 2003. Indeed, it's the same source cited today, with citation templates, although Irvin D. Yalom would be appalled to see what a mess Wikipedia has made of explaining it. Spiderman, no less! There really is, muffled beneath an 18-year-old mountain of utter dren, a real article screaming to be heard. And it can be done by putting the modern acoutrements like ((reflist)), ((confuse)) personal responsibility, and so forth on Kat's very first revision and building upon it. That would be truly amazing to do. Let me know when it is deleted. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination makes a vague wave to WP:NOTESSAY. That's about "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts)." That's not what we have here as the page has been incrementally developed over 18 years by over 100 editors and so is more of a mish-mash, as discussed above, with no particular person being responsible. Some actual editing by a single person seems needed to make the text more coherent with a tighter scope and flow. Uncle G seems to have a clear vision and so should be given the opportunity to follow up. Our policy in such cases is WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 08:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- I did more research on this and now have found the term used several times, see this google search. --Rusf10 (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It gets even better if you use M. Yalom's surname. You two are going to spoil all of my fun. There I was looking forward to an edit history that went from 2003 to 2021 in a single diff. Uncle G (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above as far as sources and having sufficient coverage to be made into something worthwhile are concerned, and per WP:DINC as to the current state of the article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. The topic may be notable, but the current article is a poorly written mess tagged with OR for years. It has no footnotes. No prejduce for this being recreated, which will be much easier once the volunteer who want to do so is not burdened having to read or rewrte this mess. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uncle G the article may be kept with a reduced version as a majority of it seems undoubtedly WP:OR without secondary references. Chirota (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chiro725, Which part can be kept without references? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Piotrus, No part should be kept without any reference. Given the fact that the concept of Responsibility assumption has a reference in the book May, Rollo, and Irvin D. Yalom (1984). Existential Psychotherapy I leaned towards KEEP. But of course the popular culture segment is highly opinionated and original research, same is true with the segment Variations in degree of personal responsibility postulated and Religious and philosophical roots and usage. So, my argument to keep the article was per what Uncle G argued that, the first revision of the article may be kept. Hope this clarifies. Chirota (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chiro725, Ah. I see. If we go back as far as this, this may be salvageable. Is anyone willing to copyedit this? User:Uncle G? I am fine with changing my vote to draftify if anyone volunteers. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was quite serious. Go back to that initial revision, stick on the modern paraphernalia, and work forward with all of those books in hand. Chuck out all of the rest of the edit history. I was actually expecting, based upon experience, people to overwhelmingly decide for deletion here. Uncle G (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe, I would prefer even with a reduced main section and deleted Spiritual/Religious roots section. Chirota (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2021 (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.