Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primary reinforcement

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Reinforcement. – ABCD 20:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Primary reinforcement

This has been TRANSWIKIed so don't vote Transwiki again, mmmkay?. I want to stop it from being deleted on the grounds because wikipedia needs it to explain Operant conditioning chambers and potentially other aspects of Behaviorism. I vote keep. Kappa 11:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) P.S. Anyone else who votes "keep" or "merge" gets a cookie...

• • Vote changed to redirect per Uncle G. Kappa 22:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Though it is a dicdef, I know of a few places this could easily go. The page can be expanded too, so we can provide examples of primary reinforcement. Zscout370 13:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Dele- oh, wait, a cookie? Oh wow, I love cookies! Merge somewhere into Behavioral psychology, as this term makes the most sense in a context of related terms. Radiant_* 14:21, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I love cookies too! I think there is a Wikicookie award given out a few times, I will try to locate it as soon as I can. Zscout370 16:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. Seems like a topic that could easily be encyclopedic. Mmmmm, cookies. DaveTheRed 18:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not going to get a cookie. The article as it stands fulfils CSD criterion #A1, since it is one sentence long and doesn't even provide the context of the discipline in which the term is used. Whilst it says that "a Primary Reinforcer is one" it doesn't explain one what. Someone who didn't already know what a primary reinforcer was would not be edified one whit by this article. This article appears to be entirely the result of a badly chosen hyperlink at operant conditioning chamber, which I've fixed. Redirect to reinforcement, where the expansion and context that you want already exists. Uncle G 21:44, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
  • I guess redirection is OK, at least it's not totally leaving the users without a clue the way a speedy delete would. In the interests of consensus, I'll change my vote to redirect, and I guess the other cookie-lovers won't mind too much if that happens. Kappa 22:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with reservations. Article could do with some major expansion. A merge also wouldn't be out of the question. Megan1967 04:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to reinforcement. Nothing to merge. And my doctor won't let me eat cookies anymore anyway. :( —Korath (Talk) 00:56, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.