Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumping to conclusions


 * 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. The arguments have it: keep. The version that the delete voters looked at is utterly different from the ones subsequent keep voters saw. "Delete per nom" loses a bit of its value after the nom withdraws; "not urban dictionary" is undercut by the rigorous sourcing presented in this discussion--the article merely awaits implementation of Uncle G's research (hint!). Ryan, I trust there won't be a discussion next month, but I'll accept your lean. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Jumping to conclusions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am also nominating the following related page, which is merely a redirect left over from the move, and depending on the outcome of this discussion could be tagged Db-xfd:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; we already have jump to conclusions; inbound links appear to be inconsequential. -- Trevj (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. -- Trevj (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: dictionary definition and a couple of self-help type sources, but nothing encyclopedic. Pam D  17:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not the Urban dictionary. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I will jump to the conclusion that this is a non-encyclopedic topic.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 05:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Uncle G.--Coin945 (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Impulsivity, why do articles like this get created? JoshuSasori (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Because . Uncle G (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Because . Uncle G (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Ri l ey    01:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - there seems to be a clear consensus to remove the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of it self-admittedly based upon jumping to conclusions and no research. Here is how one provides a good rationale based upon research.  Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Coin945 is right. There is a psychology term for this.  It is &mdash; wait for it! &mdash; jumping to conclusions.  See  for documentation and  for an example.  Professor Nevid lists it as one of the "cognitive distortions associated with depression".  Other sources, of which there are quite a few, list it as a characteristic of schizophrenia.  There's a thing known as a "jumping to conclusions bias", shortened to "JTC bias", which has been studied.   gives an overview, and a meta-analysis of the literature on the subject is available in . Coin945, you had the right idea.  You even had the right title.  You just had utterly poor sources.  Here are some of the many better ones, which should show you where else to look for more.  Go!  &#9786;
 * Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for all your efforts. I truly appreciate all your hard work. Yes, I set up a basic stub as I figured it was better than nothing, but all the deletes prompted me to second-guess myself. Your research has flipped me back to my original position. Now, i guess, we just have to get our hands on those texts and get stuck in....--Coin945 (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One wuestion: what is your opinion on this: "When we fail to distinguish between what we observed firsthand and what we only inferred or assumed, inference-observation confusion (better known as jumping to conclusions) has occurred."? Is this the better name for the article as it is more proper (albeit less common)? --Coin945 (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My own, offhand, opinion is no, for the simple reason that it doesn't turn up in the psychiatry and psychology books, whereas, as you've seen by now, "jumping to conclusions" and "jumping to conclusions bias" do. This is not to say that Haney's Uncritical Inference Test is not a part of the subject that is also worth discussing.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn based on what looks to be in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I'm not sure that it warrants an article of its own, but it now looks to me like a merge candidate. I'm adding a further 2009 article I found below, along with direct links to Google Books (where found) for the sources cited above. -- Trevj (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Irony award Isn't there some kind of irony award we can give to an AFD like this??  16:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This comment is a win! Mkdw talk 23:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My own, offhand, opinion is no, for the simple reason that it doesn't turn up in the psychiatry and psychology books, whereas, as you've seen by now, "jumping to conclusions" and "jumping to conclusions bias" do. This is not to say that Haney's Uncritical Inference Test is not a part of the subject that is also worth discussing.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn based on what looks to be in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I'm not sure that it warrants an article of its own, but it now looks to me like a merge candidate. I'm adding a further 2009 article I found below, along with direct links to Google Books (where found) for the sources cited above. -- Trevj (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Irony award Isn't there some kind of irony award we can give to an AFD like this??  16:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This comment is a win! Mkdw talk 23:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I closed this AFD because the nominator had withdrawn, but apparently the discussion must go on, so I apologize and here it is again. Also, my !vote is keep, as per Uncle G. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm just beginning to try to analyze the sources and the various reasons that this article should be kept or deleted. I've taken only a short time to look through the available material and my concern is that while there is material on the subject, it is a cognitive distortion and might be better covered there.  I'll try to take a deeper look soon.  As for right now, I would say that I'm leaning keep, but intend to revisit the discussion in a month or so depending on how the article is able to expand. Ryan Vesey 00:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:UNCLEG. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   19:30, 14 December 2012 (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.