Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypothesis of Collective Imprudence

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 of the discussion was delete. The existence of the article is premature, as most commentors have observed. A mention in the Derbyshire article might be worthwhile, but no merge is required. Mackensen (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hypothesis of Collective Imprudence

Prodded, htom disagreed. This hypothesis was first formulated yesterday ([1]) by columnist John Derbyshire on the weblog of the National Review. The lack of notability seems obvious to me. David Sneek 19:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Is it the yesterdayness, that it was proposed by John Derbyshire, that it was published on a weblog, or by the National Review that you think makes it unnotable? (None of those reasons, btw, seem to be a reason for deletion.) That it is obvious to you that the idea lacks notability does not mean that others will find it so. --htom 19:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Being original research is one of our primary reasons for deletion, as per our deletion policy. Uncle G 18:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• I think it's a valid topic, but could perhaps be made more abstract; codify the theory in a few short sentences - make it about the idea, rather than the fact that it's an idea by a particular person. CAWP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.150.81 (talk • contribs).
• Delete The yesterdayness and the article not asserting any mention other than by the theory's creator do it for me. JChap 20:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not (yet) notable. Add it to the John Derbyshire page if it is significant to his oeuvre. Dpv 22:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JChap & Dpv (WP:NEO). "Nothing will get done until something awful happens. Then some neologism will get coined." I have heard the same theory since I was a child, in terms of "if no one fixes that loose tile/dodgy brake/nuclear reactor, someone will get killed..." I just wasn't smart enough to give it a flashy-sounding name, I guess. --DaveG12345 23:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete - The argument that supposes that this should be deleted because it is too new seems absurd. Einstein's Theory of Relativity was published on a certain day—say, Tuesday. Does it hold that it shouldn't have been written about on Wednesday? Would the Wikipedia community have deleted an entry for "The Theory of Relativity" because it was too new? Simply put, the argument for deletion has nothing to do with the content of the article. If it goes down, it should go down on its own merits. Further, others in the Wikipedia community have now sourced other materials that speak to the same phenomenon. To my mind, this only bolsters the case for not deleting it. If my arguments remain unpersuasive, however, I am certainly open to the idea of moving this to a subsection of Derbyshire’s biographical page. --BeingClever 08:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Would the Wikipedia community have deleted an entry for "The Theory of Relativity" because it was too new? — Yes. This is an encyclopaedia. Things don't belong here until they have been first published elsewhere, gone through a process of peer review, and gained acceptance in the world at large. See our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Uncle G 18:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Einstein was already a Nobel Prize winner, and his paper was peer reviewed, so he gets the benefit of the doubt that hacks for the NRO don't get. -- GWO
• Notability doesn't enter into it. This is original research, the promulgation of a single person's proposed adage that has yet to gain traction in the world at large. The citations in the article that mention people talking about "collective imprudence" as a general concept, and not the proposed adage that is the subject of this article, do not alter that in any way. Delete. Uncle G 18:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, sounds interesting but is still a neologism. HumbleGod 22:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up on The Corner one day. -Joshuapaquin 02:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. Move, Instead.. Careful now. When you call someone a “hack” because of where he works, you’re giving us insight into your political bias—and some possible motivations for wanting this entry deleted. It did go a long way toward proving my point: that the argument is still barely (if at all) about the Hypothesis itself. Engaging in libel for the purposes of getting your way? For shame. Further, HCI has apparently begun to branch out to the world at large. See this for a (very) small example. I am ultimately convinced, however, that this argument is all but over. It would likely be best (and most appropriate) for this to be moved into the Wikipedia entry for John Derbyshire, awaiting further citations from the world at large. Can we agree on that, at least? -BeingClever 11:35, 8 July 2006
• Comment Please do not delete the contributions others make to this discussion. ([2]) David Sneek 17:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please also leave only one of your delete/keep summaries in bold format (have un-bolded your first one)--DaveG12345 17:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. I like the idea of moving it into the Derbyshire page. It would remain but would be more appropriately filed. Also, the political flavor coming from some posts really doesn't bear on the conversation. --Rtrev 13:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Move It fits well within the Derbyshire page.
• Move, I suppose, with a link from here, would be better than delete. As a newcomer to wiki-ness, I'm a bit confused by the use of the word "move" in this context; I would think that it would be "merge", "move" being a change of the article title while retaining the article. If this is joined to the Derbyshire page, what happens to this talk page (lest someone else come along and start the article again?) -- htom 15:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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.