Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Equilibrium 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. JForget 00:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Jordan Equilibrium Theory

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article's nearly entirely original research. The references in the article, at least the ones that aren't dead links, don't even mention this "theory" that I'm pretty sure was made up one day. I would tag it with db-hoax but I want to be fair given that I'm not sure about it, so I'm bringing it here to allow the author a reasonable forum to respond, and also to elicit other opinions on the deletion.  elektrik SHOOS  09:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Include:
 * as being a related image which is only used in the article and was uploaded by the author, which again, I'm pretty sure is just made up.  elektrik SHOOS  09:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, the file's on the Commons and would presumably have to go through their deletion process.  elektrik  SHOOS  09:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I welcome your feedback and the opportunity to respond to it.
 * You state that "The article's nearly entirely original research." This is not refutable as the theory has not been published. It has, however, been widely discussed over the past three years over three continents under various different guises.
 * The plight of educated, successful women and their difficulties in finding partners has been a topic of much debate and discussion in the popular press over the last decade. A generation of women have followed their mothers' into sexual and social emancipation and found themselves sorely lacking a partner.
 * The Jordan Equilibrium Theory offers a unifying theory as to why women struggle to find men as they age and why men find it easier.
 * You write "The references in the article, at least the ones that aren't dead links, don't even mention this "theory" that I'm pretty sure was made up one day." There are six references in the article and only one was a "dead link". I have now corrected that as the article I was quoting has moved. All theories are "made up one day," discussed and refined. This one is no different. Pcpsclub (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, pcpsclub, comments related to an Afd should go on this page, not the talk page. I've moved the comment for you from there to here.  elektrik SHOOS  17:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOTMADEUP, WP:NOT and WP:ORIGINAL. Wikipedia is not a place to publish syntheses of ideas. Yes, all theories are "made up one day," as you said, but the difference is that ones which should be on Wikipedia have already been established and widely talked about—not mentioned in passing (or not mentioned at all) which is what the sources you have listed show. Also, two of your sources are other Wikipedia articles. You cannot cite other Wikipedia articles as a verifiable source.  elektrik SHOOS  17:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as a rehash of the idea that women should get married before they get "too old", with the article's author naming it after himself.  Sources are included to show that this is "a widely discussed theory", but, not surprisingly, none of them happen to have the word "Jordan" in them.  I recommend that we apply the widely discussed "Mandsford Theory", which is that topics have to be notable in order to be kept.  It's not actually called the Mandsford Theory, except by the best and brightest on Wikipedia, but it is often cited as WP:N (atypically called WP:MANDSFORD, but the other name is more popular because it's easier to write, of course). Mandsford 13:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, my name doesn't work as well as a theory name (except as WP:SHOO), but I may use this Mandsford Theory in future Afds.  elektrik SHOOS  17:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Pure original research.  Doubt it qualifies as a hoax; the theory itself is probably trivial rather than false, and the only hoax would be naming this after "Jordan".  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, all theories start off as someone's own little pet. Some day, this one might become one of the established ones. (It has a better chance of this than I have of becoming Pope...) Until then, no article. Peridon (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the name as such looks to be a hoax, although some of the material is based on research. I might change my mind if the term has appeared in peer-reviewed psychology/sociology literature. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't fail to miss the article by A. Jordan, "Chronological and Gender Intersection in Sexual Relationship as a Proposed 20th Dimension of Compatibility: An Experience Sampling Study" in the most recent issue of Journal of Abnormal Psychology Mandsford 16:31, 27 July 2010 (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.