Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kick the cat effect


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn due to sourcing and content salvage by User:Ritchie333. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Kick the cat effect

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly written and poorly sourced essay about a pop psychology neologism. We can certainly all attest to the phenomenon that it describes — John gets mad at Lisa, who gets mad at Mike, who gets mad at Eleanor, who goes home and kicks the cat — but there's no properly sourced evidence that this is commonly accepted as a name for it. The main study cited here to support the thesis gives a date of 2014, but no indication whatsoever of which peer-reviewed academic journal might have published it — and purportedly, the study in question has been going on for 20 years despite being conducted entirely on Facebook. And furthermore, if I google the phrase "kick the cat effect" for independent verification, the phrase appears to exist exclusively in strings of search engine optimization keyword salad or on non-notable blogs that don't count as reliable sourcing for anything. Finally, there's the quality of writing tone: for one thing, the introduction actually, literally does describe the phenomenon by means of an anecdote about John and Lisa and Mike and a cat (arrayed, no less, under the section heading "Captivating opening") rather than in encyclopedic terms; for another sample of the quality on display here, ponder "On of my personal opinion is we needs more improvement to develop a more reliable experiment for emotional contagion, a experiment not base social network, social network is a place were people can hid their real identity and real emotion, what we say online can be all fake." What we have here, in other words, is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Looks WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.  野狼院 ひさし  Hisashi Yarouin 00:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The study cited as the first reference in the article is here. It doesn't use the phrase "kick the cat", though, so this does seem like WP:SYNTH. Everymorning   talk to me  01:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't really find anything to suggest that this specific term is in high enough use to where it'd merit its own article. I'd support a speedy deletion as something someone came up with WP:ONEDAY, as this is ultimately a neologism and a ton of WP:OR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The way that this is laid out kind of gives off the impression that this was either cut and pasted from somewhere or it is a class assignment. I can't find anything to support copyvio via a search, so I'm leaning towards a school assignment. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article in its original state wasn't suitable for an encyclopedia, but the concept of "kicking the cat" as a metaphor is acceptable. I've rewritten the article from scratch using proper sources - have a look now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was possible, but you've actually salvaged this as a keepable article. Thanks for that, consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: Anecdotally, I always heard it as "kicking the dog" as a psychological act of misplaced anger. We don't even have an article on that; except as a mention here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blame#Blame_shifting. Here on Wikipedia we are currently attempting to address gender differences in humans. Please no kicking cats, if we are not kicking dogs. Improved or not: delete! Fylbecatulous talk 16:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with that argument is that the article now has a source from The Guardian and it states, verbatim, "Hugh Robertson of the TUC points out that there is well-known (my emphasis) "kick the cat" effect". If a national newspaper reports an article topic is well-known, it is worth further investigation and research. I am sympathetic to the arguments that the article can have a better name, and that the phrase appears in a lot of unreliable sources, understand that, but if you dig deeper I think you can find enough evidence to make the idiom meet WP:GNG. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:39, 26 November 2014 (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.