The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essay / original research. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete: As original research. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 02:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reasons that you think that this is an essay, or original research, is that it used Harvard referencing (a perfectly valid referencing style for a Wikipedia article), repeated its title in the article body, and didn't use the correct markup. The fact that it was unwikified entirely slewed your opinions, and those opinions have no basis in policy whatsoever.
You should have read the article properly, ignoring (or — better yet! — fixing) the cleanup issues. Had you done so, you'd have found a source cited for every single point in the article, and that these sources were things like Dr. Chanthika Pornpitakpan, a professor at the University of Macau, writing in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology. This isn't a Wikipedia editor writing up previously unpublished ideas directly in Wikpiedia, which is what actually would be covered by the original research policy here. This is a Wikipedia editor writing content entirely based upon reliable sources and citing those sources in full. We could hardly ask for better (except that it be properly wikified).
The irony here is so thick as to be almost tangible. This is a perfectly valid subject, as documented in many places such as pages 286 et seq. of ISBN 9780765613158 (q.v.), and an article whose only faults are being in need of cleanup and expansion, which actually explains that people favour presentation over substance. There is no reason supported by deletion policy for deleting this. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, your discussion of "sin" is a straw man of your own construction. No-one except you yourself has said that you have sinned. There's nothing "aggressive" about pointing out where policy has been grossly, and ironically, mis-applied in a way that it does not actually apply at all. (Hint: There are, sadly, plenty of examples of aggression on Wikipedia. It generally looks like this or this. Spot the quite marked difference? No-one has called you ignorant, useless, or impertinent, or told you to "grow up and shut the fuck up". And the only person who has called you a sinner is you yourself.)
Finally, you ask for votes. This is not a vote, and the above is an opinion with an explanation. It's a quite clear explanation of how policy does not apply in the way that you assert it to apply, and what the error is that you've all made. (It's not the first time that people have looked at an unwikified article and not seen past the markup.) In yet further irony, you talk of explanations when your 3-word rationale is devoid of any explanation at all. This only serves to highlight your further error in stating that I'm explaining your reason to you. Quite the contrary, I'm taking your reason exactly as it was written: that the Wikipedia:No original research policy purportedly applied. You either don't understand that policy in the slightest, or you didn't look at the sources cited and didn't look beyond the style of the article to its substance. I took it that you understood the policy, but didn't read the article and see its actual substance, including the reliable sources that it cited in support of every single part of its content, for the unwikification and the Harvard referencing — as so many have done before you (Despite Wikipedia style guidelines, I've observed a significant bias against Harvard referencing at AFD over the years.), and that is spectacularly ironic in this particular case, given what this article's subject in fact is. You could have been simply sheep voting, of course, but I didn't work on that assumption.
When someone makes an error, it's quite legitimate to point out that it is an error. You weren't "targetted for trying to apply standards". You were told that you were doing things wrongly, and not actually applying our policies. You were not applying our standards, in any way. The route to not getting a complete misapplication of policy being pointed out by other people is to not mis-apply it in the first place, not to try to distract the discussion onto the subject of the people who point out such errors when they happen. Uncle G (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go and read the handbook to see what more there is to write. Indeed, read page 345, where it summarizes what social psychologists have found out about attractiveness and how it affects processing and cognitive response, and compare it to how Wikipedia editors have demonstrably responded when an unwikified and unattractive stub with (excessive) Harvard referencing is added to Wikipedia. Some social psychologist somewhere is probably thinking of making this a case study. Uncle G (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And as to breadth: We not only have the latter book that I mention here, relating source credibility to police procedures, but even sources like ISBN 9780805074031 who connect it to Rush Limbaugh. In between, as already observed, we have this concept's applications in communication theory, advertising, marketing, and so forth. Uncle G (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]