Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladder theory (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Delete arguments are stronger. Article has been around since Jan 2004, been through two other deletion discussions. This specific topic still has no references, nor any coverage in reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ladder theory
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has survived VFD in 2004 and AFD in 2006. However, it does not appear to me to be notable. It has a non-trivial article from The Tech (newspaper), but its other references, to relationship books, do not indicate pages and are not necessarily non-trivial (I'll admit here I don't have these books to verify for myself). A Google search throws up unreliable sources.

This "theory" has certainly been blogged about and discussed on webforums, but has not, as far as I can tell: AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"
 * 2) "won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization"
 * 3) been "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators"


 * Keep, a web discussion board devoted to the “Ladder Theory”, has very significant traffic and dozens of posts every day. Samboy (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This article was not correctly placed on the WP:AFD page; I have fixed this. The nomination was originally done yesterday (October 10) but wasn’t placed here until today. Samboy (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of significant third party coverage in WP:RS. Web discussion boards don't count, and The Tech (newspaper) is a campus newspaper, which IMHO doesn't count as a RS either. (If reliable 3rd party sources are produced I'll change my mind). Peter Ballard (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Neutral - 35 Google News hits, 569 google book hits, and, most importantly, 208 google scholar hits --UltraMagnusspeak 17:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Large numbers of those are completely irrelevant, including apparently all of the scholar results and almost all of the book results, with this possible exception. However, some e.g. this and this (two more university newsletters), and this do actually deal with this article's subject. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment agree with AlmostReadytoFly. Almost all of those hits are about the physics or economics concept, not the article in question. Article keep/delete is not about counting google hits. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * comment good point--UltraMagnus</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="color: red; background-color:black">speak</SPAN> 09:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep AlmostReadytoFly: Although the notability of this topic is certainly debatable, it certainly should not have to conform to the requirements at WP:WEB, as you contend in your nomination. "Ladder theory" is not a website. WP:WEB applies to websites. Ergo, that argument is irrelevant. The WP:RS argument is a bit trickier, but Google indicates that several third-party publications have covered the topic. (It should be noted, however, that many or most of the 569 Google Books hits cited by UltraMagnus are about the ladder theories of education, economics, agriculture, etc.) In any case, I don't have a problem with keeping an article about marginally notable pop psychobabble so long as the article prominently represents (this one does) that its subject is "pseudoscientific," "unsubstantiated," and "has never appeared in a referenced journal or scientific forum," and that "its proponents cite no studies or data sets to support their conclusions." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I am not convinced this is a valid and specific use of the term. The hypothesis about the continuing conventional sexist differences is rather standard, and has been expressed in a variety of ways other than this metaphor.  Looking at the GNews archive accounts, I see exactly that: the 1st, 2nd, & 3rd hits are  about the use of the term in other contexts entirely. The first use of it in this sense is a student newspaper which takes a rather skeptical view of it, and the other uses appear of a similar order  GNews in its attempt to include everything in the covered newspapers is rapidly using its reliability as a guide to reliable sources for  Wikipedia purposes/ At the least, the article needs to be retitled to clarify the extremely limited scope —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * Delete This article, in the opening paragraph, lists all the reasons it should be deleted: "[T]he theory has never appeared in a referenced journal or scientific forum and its proponents cite no studies or data sets to support their conclusions." Hires an editor (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete in its present form at least per Hires an editor. Looking at the earlier deletion discussion it appears to have survived on the grounds that it is an interesting internet meme rather than a credible theory (in the sense of being verifiable as opposed to corresponding to some peoples' actual experiences). If this was a much shorter article, without all the unverified details and focussing on its (apparently) growing appeal in internet/student circles rather the trying to sell the theory itself, it would be a lot more acceptable in my view. Ben   Mac  Dui  08:01, 15 October 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.