Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attraction pathology
Attraction pathology was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.
I ran across this article, and it had a lot of original research in it. I made a serious attempt to cleanup this article. I thought about it over the weekend, and decided the article itself really doesn't have anything left to it, now that all the opinion and original research has been removed. Furthermore, when I was doing the editing last week, I did a google search of the term "attraction pathology" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=%22attraction+pathology%22 and apart from self referential links from mirrors, there's really nothing there. So... I vote for deletion. --Frogcat 19:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
... oh, and there aren't any "real" pages that link to it --Frogcat 19:56, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: I looked at the original article. None of the concepts mentionned are new or original research, it's just the way the author grouped them all together and called them "attraction pathology" (which really shouldn't be done). There's no potential here. Delete. --jag123 21:26, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Was this listed on Clean Up? It seems like one of those ideas that attracts idle speculation and original research, yes. (A German friend had a "thoroughbred fireplug" theory to explain short, bald men with gorgeous super-model women. He had a lot of details for this theory. Seems like "attraction pathology" is somewhere in that ballpark.) If it's not in use in psychology, we must delete. Geogre 01:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: original research. At best, redirect to a relevant article. -Sean Curtin 23:52, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. There are 3 headings followed by "No studies have been done on the effects of attraction pathology." In other words, it's saying nothing of use. What kind of idiot writes an article then denies the topic exists? Can this page. EventHorizon 03:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- That wasn't part of the original article. 64.70.34.251 removed all non NPOV material and put "No studies..." instead of just removing the headers. --jag123 10:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I initially "boldly edited" the article to pull all the opinion, original research, soapboxing, etc. I wasn't logged in at the time. After thinking about the edits for a few days, I thought that the whole article didn't belong... --Frogcat 21:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- That wasn't part of the original article. 64.70.34.251 removed all non NPOV material and put "No studies..." instead of just removing the headers. --jag123 10:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, this classification is not notable. Wyss 12:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.