Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zest (positive psychology)

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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zest (positive psychology)

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

Merge to Positive Psychology and delete. This is mostly either unsourced or cited to a single article on the subject written by the creator of the theory, and appears to be part of an attempt to promote that theory on Wikipedia. What content is particular to this 'strength of humanity' is essentially a dictionary definition of the term. Revent (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Use/application of zest in positive psychology is not different and distinct enough from the general concept of zest to warrant a new article just on its use in this specific area. There should be a new article on Zest, which could be based on this article. Currently, Zest is a disambiguation page, but I think Zest should be an article on the character trait, and the disambiguation page should be renamed. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2014 (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.