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

Horseshoe theory[edit]

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

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]

Speedy Keep - I believe this may be a bad faith nomination from an SPA along with other delete !votes from SPAs. It would be interesting to compare the IPs for User:LB QC, User:LeonsMum, and User:OfficerBlue. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 06:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have removed comments from LeonsMum and OfficerBlue - they represent nothing more than obvious trolling and silly personal attacks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am offended and outraged by your actions. Go on, compare IP's. Maybe you should have done that before deleting my vote, mmmm? You can't delete it because you disagree with me. --OfficerBlue (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have removed your personal attacks again. (And if you look, you'll see that I'm one of the few that agrees with you about the article.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I tend to agree with LinguistAtLarge. Bad faith and personal dislike for individual seems to motivate those who want to delete this article. The theory may be a little obscure, but it also seems to be well-known by some. Apollo1986 • [> 06:49, 5 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.