Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet theory

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 NO CONSENSUS. Accordingly, the article will be kept, though may be merged and redirected according to editorial needs. Postdlf 21:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pet theory

Non-encyclopedic. TigerShark 00:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not NPOV, and a dicdef besides. -- 8^D ^gab 01:31, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• Delete. no aditional meaning other than pet + theory. Mikkalai 04:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep real term. Could be expanded by adding examples. Grue 17:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Yes, it's a real term. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Before you can make a term into an enclopedia entry, you have to say something about it that goes beyond a simple definition. The anonymous author of this article tried to do that, but didn't manage to get beyond some vague generalities. Perhaps we should process it for improvement rather than deletion, but I don't see anybody taking ownership of it for that purpose. Isaac R 20:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Right now it's merely a definition and a stub, but it has room to expand using examples, etc. This is how many articles start, just give them time. --Aranae 01:01, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I disagree that it's a stub --- it's too vague and subjective. There's nothing here for anybody to expand upon. Which is why nobody's made any changes (except for a copy edit) in the 18 months since the article was created. --Isaac R 01:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to theory. Radiant_* 13:56, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of merging with theory, but I'm not sure it could be done smoothly. In time that article will need to be split and this may be a later split. If anyone can merge with theory and make it work, then I'd change my vote to merge. --Aranae 17:46, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Pet theory isn't about theories as such. It's about the psychology of people who have a personal stake in particular theory. Maybe you could make a case for merging Pet theory with one of the Objectivity articles, but even that's a bit of a stretch. There's a better fit in the ideas of Thomas Kuhn, but since the ideas don't seem to be consciously based on Kuhn, you can't merge it in there, either. ---Isaac R 18:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I apologies for rambling on, but writing the previous paragraph made me realize that Pet theory breaks another Wikipedia rule: No original research. The author is making wholly original observations about the psychology of inobjectivy. It might seem strange to penalize the author for thinking his own thoughts, but that's not the kind of thing you put in an encylopedia. ---Isaac R 18:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Real phrase in real use, but no potential to become encyclopedic as it can never be more than a dicdef. The portions of this article that go beyond being a dicdef are, as Isaac R pointed out, original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep please let the stub expand Yuckfoo 06:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or at the very least remove to wikidictionary. --maru 00:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a phenomenon more than a definition. Potential for expansion to explain such things as researchers who include content in lectures that they never submit for peer review in publication form, colloquial usage of the term in the press and online, and how the term has perjorative impact when applied to any proposal. Tobycat 02:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Though it's not much at the moment, it has potential for encyclopedic merit. Josh 04:15, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-enciclopedical, NPOV, original research.
• Keep. Perfectly good wiki material. I can think of a few examples where some scientist's pet theory made a notable episode in the history of science. Usually such pet theories are wrong, but sometimes they are right. Consider Dick Feynman's pet theory about room at the bottom, or even Kelvin's pet theory of the impossibility of heavier-than-air flight. I'll put some examples in when I get a minute. Robinh 12:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It may be good wiki material. The question is, is it good Wikipedia material? This is a reference, not a soapbox. ---Isaac R 15:36, 27 Apr 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.