- 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 Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kick in the Ass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Seems like utter nonsense from an encyclopedic perspective. Term is a neologism, certainly not some kind of official motivational method that aught to be capitalized. Referenced are basically searching for any document that uses the phrase. ZimZalaBim talk 19:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Seems to be
made up farceDoc Strange (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There. Sigh. I took out the part of my vote that offended the article's creator. but I still think it's deletable per WP:NFT Doc Strange (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; this article sounds like a joke or even patent nonsense. *** Crotalus *** 04:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; it's not only just made up, it's *also* not about the Moxy Fruvous song. --FOo (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep; to be frank I urge people to 1) do their research and 2) do not vote delete because it has a funny name. Or have a quick read to some of these academic websites [1], [2] and academic textboos [3]. This argument it self voids the above the three delete votes. Englishrose (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivial mention of a neologism hardly seems sufficient, IMO. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an official theory. You are confusing something that has a name to be a neologism. Theory X workers are names, it does not mean it's a neologism. Englishrose (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to reiterate what I mean by official theory: it's an officially accepted (ie it's in textbooks) theory as no theorys are official.Englishrose (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, trivial mention is a random textbook doesn't make something an "officially accepted theory", and this is a neologism. See the guidelines for Reliable sources for neologisms. We must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. --ZimZalaBim talk 20:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to reiterate what I mean by official theory: it's an officially accepted (ie it's in textbooks) theory as no theorys are official.Englishrose (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an official theory. You are confusing something that has a name to be a neologism. Theory X workers are names, it does not mean it's a neologism. Englishrose (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: KITA (kick in the ass) is a concept framed by Herzberg that is usually deployed as a kind of straw man theory describing how not to deal with employees. It appears in the business literature on motivation. Do a search on google books and you'll find dozens of business motivation books that refer to KITA. One could argue that the idea might best be dealt with in a broader article on employee motivation but that is for another day. Nesbit (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as Motivation#Motivational_Theories, which is also lacking in proper citations. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:33, 18 February 2008 (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.