Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fish hook theory

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. Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fish hook theory[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. This seems to be insufficiently notable for an article. The sources are few and poor. Two of them are by the same author and one is primary. At least one is not RS. This is nowhere near meeting our requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources. Looking in Google Books, Newspapers and Scholar it seems that this political usage is not even the most widely used meaning the term has. (It mostly seems to refer to something religious, which I did not look at closely as it is very obviously nothing to do with the subject of this article. I have no idea whether that is notable but if it is then it would seem to have a better claim on this article title than this subject.) There is also something called the "Fish Hook Effect" which turns up in searches but that is something to do with meteorology and is no help here. This subject barely pokes its head out of the RS Google hits. There is just enough to provide verifiability that the theory does exist but it seems to be one academic's personal theory with just a few fans. There is nothing wrong with that (And who knows whether it will become more widely accepted in the future?) but it does not qualify for an article at this time. It already has quite sufficient (possibly rather more than sufficient) coverage in the Horseshoe theory article. DanielRigal (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, who I believe has harvested some of his reasons from comments I have made on the talkpage and on Horseshoe theory (Fish hook theory is explicitly a reaction to Horseshoe theory). I should note that the two sources by the same author are actually the same text published in two different (non-academic) venues, so there is even less sourcing than first appearances. Fish hook theory isn't a thing in political science circles at all. The twice-cited text even dismisses it as basically a meme. To clarify the principle I think should apply here: some people have supported deletion of Horseshoe Theory because it is generally not supported in current academic circles, but a key difference is that Horseshoe theory is recognised as an idea in political science enough that academics spend time discussing the evidence for it. Here, there does not appear to be any such notability derivable from academic sources. OsFish (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overall, this appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia give a leg up to a concept which is not recognized in its field. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references are wishful thinking by liberal activists, not reliable secondary sources that use this term. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Note that sources on page are opinion pieces on progressive websites: "The Progresssive Army, Pacific Standard. Plus an essay arguing that " ‘Horseshoe theory’ is nonsense" .E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Not "liberal", far-left, I'd say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom statement, and because of failure to find support in the scholarly literature for "fish hook theory".E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2018 (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.