Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extraordinarity bias


 * 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   merge to List of cognitive biases. Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 00:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinarity bias

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Apparently not a notable topic. No sources given: no hits for the phrase on Google Scholar or Google Books, not mentioned in common books on cognitive biases. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is already mentioned on the List of cognitive biases. It belongs there and should not be separated into its own article until it has a reliable source or two.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  09:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of cognitive biases as per above. Simonm223 (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge: per above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge: per above. Interestingly Bruce M. Hood, a cognitive science researcher, does work on a very similar cognitive bias. His differs from this in that it is not only a positive response to extraordinarity, but also a negative one. In one example asking people to wear a cardigan he is holding. They say okay, then he says "it was Charles Manson's sweater." Then, they say no.TheThomas (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment. The AfD notice seems never to have been placed on the article itself, so I relisted it to complete the nomination. Despite the long time since the original nomination and the seeming consensus above, please let this run a full seven days from the time of relisting to allow people who have the article watchlisted to notice and comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge: per above. Eusebeus (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect for now, but if someone wants to do a more comprehensive and sourced article, there's always room to spin it back out. Mandsford (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I didn't do the original AfD properly, and thanks to David Eppstein for doing a proper job. Merge into the list if that's what people want, though I doubt there are even the sources to justify it on that page. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2009 (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.