Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instinct 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 07:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Instinct Theory

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Instinct theory does not site any real sources and is obviously made up. There is no book by Jacques Theroux named Instinct Theory, nor is there anyone by the name of Jacques Theroux. Eidolos

Question: What do you mean by "obviously made up"? "Instinct theory" garners approx. 44,000 exact hits on Google and is mentioned in several authoritative webpages, so there is at least such a thing. Checking the page history, many established editors have contributed to the article...it's not exactly "fake". If there's an accuracy problem, I believe this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion itself. +A.0u 04:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Answer: There is no one by the name of Theroux, nor does the Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen have anything to do with this. "Instinct theory" may get a lot of hits on google because there are theories on instincs but how many come up when you type in jacques theroux? or the name of his book? "Due to its dubious credibility, many scholars doubt Theroux's theory. Because of a sore lack of citations, and a ludicrously short bibliography, certain scholars have come forward and declared their disbelief in these ideas." Oh, come on! There is no truth behind anything that has been written if you look into it. "certain scholars" "many professionals" there is NO proof behind this. Eidolos


 * Delete. A.Ou's sentiments are well-intentioned, but the sense in which these authorities use the phrase is clearly not the way any portion of the article depicts it. Indeed, it depicts nothing, except a nonexistent author (Library of Congress catalog search confirms that it doesn't have anything by a Jacques Theroux).  The first paragraph is okay; the entire first section is demonstrably false; and the "Popular Culture" sections are at best original research and at worst a joke ("The 2004 film Collateral, Tom Cruise's character Vincent sees a coyote on the street and, in a very metaphorical scene, it reminds him of himself.").  And the "Musical Theatre" section none of these "established editors" have seen fit to remove?  Get rid of this blight, then we'll see if there's something encyclopedic in the topic.  --zenohockey 04:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no "Joseph A. Kenkel," either... okay, enough of this. --zenohockey 04:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

*Speedy Keep plenty of google hits, it's got references and it's verifiable by good sources. Oh by way, congrats on putting up an afd, not exactly an easy thing for a new user I know, for your first edit. --Paloma Walker 04:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

.--Paloma Walker 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to deleteUser:Eidolos and the convincing ones who say delete convinced me to  take another look at it by narrowing the search including Theroux, Kenkel, Jacques Thiroux. So just from googling I found there is or was a person by the name Jacques Thiroux  but he seemed to have nothing  to do with this theory and the other two don't seem to exist. This convinces me it's a hoax.


 * Comment: Someone should further verify this. Reading this article a second time, if there's any legitimate content (is there?), it could be "merged" into the Instinct article. +A.0u 04:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment please see . User said he created his account to get rid of this article.--Paloma Walker 05:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No reason to vote speedy keep. This deleting a bad article is not a bad way to start editing. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did make this account to point out to the Wikipedia community that my friends made a false article. I admit to that, and there's nothing wrong with it. I also made this account to fix other errors and such as I see them. I simply had no reason to create an account before this, just to fix things anonymously. This is my first account. I did not make this one in addition to another just for this deletion. I just didn't have one before and I figured this was a good time for it. Eidolos


 * Final Word Here Well, this is really out of my comfort zone... Never done this before. I am only here to point out the site to you. Please make your own decisions based on what is in this article. I just feel that this is completely untrue and needs to be taken down. There are no such people as Theroux or Kenkel, it does not site credible sources (makes a lot of generalities like "many philosophers" or "certain scholars"), there is no such book as Assertations on Instinct Theory, the main writers/editors of this site do not have any other posts or edits, and the pop culture references are a stretch to say the least. Rumors on blogs about "Instinct theory: the Musical"? "Very few details are known about this future production, except that it will contain a score with every genre of music from jazz to reggae[citation needed]. The unnamed producer has little to say about this future film, except it might be released by mid 2008." There is no way this is feasible. I have looked for Instinct Theory and even if it does exist none of the sites have anything to do with topics described here. I am sorry for the excess of posting, I just want to prove my point in hopes of persuading you that this is fake. If you want to keep the site up and simply edit it to what Instinct Theory actually is, be my guest. A site I found from google searching (allpsych.com) says that Instinct theory says that we have innate instincts that help us to survive, like how spiders know how to make webs. It has nothing to do with comparing humans and animals. Maybe this topic could be expanded on rather than what is there now, but it does not seem nearly important enough to add.. Eidolos
 * Delete Complete bollocks, hoax. Don't redirect to ethology or evolutionary psychology or instinct, just delete. Pete.Hurd 06:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The nominator has been forthcoming about having created the account for the sake of nominating this article and seems to have done it out of legitimate concern.  I don't think that should factor in to the decision - remember assuming good faith?  Anyway, this page is rife with WP:OR as it makes no attempt to properly satisfy WP:ATT.  In fact one of the references appears to be entirely fictional.  As such I doubt anything here is salvageable by merging - the term "Instinct Theory" may be a valid topic but that doesn't mean keeping/merging an article about a made-up concept with a real name is valid. Arkyan 15:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As it says in the article: "Due to its dubious credibility, many scholars doubt Theroux's theory. Because of a sore lack of citations, and a ludicrously short bibliography, certain scholars have come forward and declared their disbelief in these ideas.". Invented story, Hoax. Nothing to be merged there.--DorisHノート 20:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would you people say these things? Here are a handful of credible websites which back up instinct theory:      I can't prove Jacques Theroux to be real or Joseph Kenkel, but Instinct theory is a real scientific theory and Eidolos seems to playing more of a joke on science than the creators of this article were playing, according to him. I move that the article is rewritten with the information on Jacques Theroux omitted until he can be proven to have existed. Thank you. - nagyovafan 6:50, March 20th, 2007
 * Comment: A joke on science? Really, how is reporting a site as false information worse than writing a false page as a joke? None of this on the page can be proven as real. This is simply a hoax with a real name, as Arkyan said. Looking at the sites you have given, every single page is a theory by a different person with different ideas, and are not a single unified scientific theory that should be given its own page. If it is decided to salvage what they can from different sites and just rewrite this page, then so be it. Eidolos
 * ADDED Please make notice that Nagyovafan wrote nearly all of Instinct theory including the popular culture section when making a decision. If you couldn't prove Theroux's existance, then you shouldn't have written about him. Good day. Eidolos
 * ADDED I made several edits to the pop culture section, which you can't deny as a hoax, and I made several grammar edits, but I did not make up the Jacques Theroux story. There is such a thing as instinct theory, this page just needs a rewrite to gather all the information together in one page. - nagyovafan 12:45 PM, 21 March 2007
 * According to you wrote the whole Beginning section which first spoke of Theroux and his "book"... If you are truly are concerned that all the information is real now, then you shouldn't have made fake things up. According to  you're the one that wrote "Due to its dubious credibility, many scholars doubt Theroux's theory. Because of a sore lack of citations, and a ludicrously short bibliography, certain scholars have come forward and declared their disbelief in these ideas. " You wrote that it had a ludicrously short bibliography... why didn't you site the sources you just sited above? Why didn't you add those sites before? Your edits in the pop culture section support the rest of the article's ideas. Seeing all of your sources you just gave, I don't see a single one about an instinct theory that compared animals to humans. If I believed that you didn't write it for a second, then why, knowing this fake information about Theroux was here, did you not change it or tell anyone? Eidolos


 * Delete per nom. Deor 02:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as patent nonsense, complete bollocks, non-notability, and hoaxaliciousity, until we get some verification to the contrary. Bravo to the nominator for boldness, courage, and devotion to the truth. Thumbs up for the nominator, thumbs down to the article. Moreschi Request a recording? 21:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonsense. To crude to be an effective hoax, so not worth keeping as a notable joke. The only ingenious part was picking a title that would produce a very large number of ghits.  The items listed under IPC are however a nice parody of some of the far-fetched IPC junk. I don't think they;'d make sense as an article by themselves. DGG 23:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pseudoscientific nonsense and hoax.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2007 (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.