Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horseshoe theory

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. MBisanz talk 21:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horseshoe theory

edit

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Horseshoe theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not notable, not credible. The term 'horseshoe theory' is the brainchild of a little-read blogger, who has initiated this article. Searches in Google and Google Books produce no evidence of the term in a political context, while he provides no direct links referencing the term. Should be deleted ASAP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LB QC (talk • contribs) — User:LB QC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete. Notability of the topic does not appear to be supported by reliable independent sources. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly expand. I'll add refs culled from Google if anyone thinks sources don't exist; it appears the term is used both in political and more traditionally "hard science" enterprises. (Incidentally, this was originally speedy tagged as "patent nonsense", which strikes me as peculiar.) Townlake (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or reduce article length to match notability of topic. Google searches provide no reliable sources. Article has been created and modified by blogger who believes he/she coined the term. Top Google result is wikipedia, followed by same blogger. (I submitted the speedy request as the current version of the article was indeed nonsense.) - Damian Doyle (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I've heard people arguing over essentially the theory described in the article for about twenty years, so I can't believe it fits WP:MADEUP and would be astonished if it doesn't have some basis in verifiable sources. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but trim the garbage as per Damian Doyle above. The term is genuine enough in political theory, but that's just a coatpeg to hang the rest of this twaddle onto. The first para is really all that stands up. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Townlake.--EchetusXe (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Gnews and Gscholar searches turn up some sources in which "horseshoe theory" is used. But the problem is I couldn't find anything about the political context (far left and far right) that the article refers to. The Ghits are for Saturn's rings and geographical stuff.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  04:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep. Trimmed article looks like a worthy stub. Needs more sourcing to prove notability, but seems likely such sources exist.Yobmod (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is not well sourced and needs work but it has enough to show that both adherents of and dissenters from the theory recognise its existence and have written about it. It is described as "famous" and attributed to a notable writer in the Le Figaro reference. I also share the concerns about the good faith of the nomination. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Horseshoe_theory&oldid=1142205760"