Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Officer-Hayes Hypothesis


 * 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 Snowball Delete -- JForget  00:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Officer-Hayes Hypothesis

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The time magazine article referenced does not propose the so-called "Officer-Hayes Hypothesis", the author of the Wikipedia does. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedia's job is not to create hypotheses, it's about documenting things other people have noted. A search for the so-called Officer-Hayes Hypothesis only shows up with one l Google entry - the Wikipedia article itself. It's not even a notable neologism.Kgrr (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:OR and WP:NEO would seem to both be relevant here. The article creator seems to have turned an news opinion piece into a hypothesis, and given it a name. Original research attached to an unsourced neologism. ~ mazca  t 19:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I wrote the Wikipedia article in question and I disagree with the comments above. The TIME article does propose the hypothesis and people are starting to link to this wikipedia page on blogs and in blog comment discussions etc. Deleting this article will be detrimental to the discussions/debate taking place online. ~ gobaudd t —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment.Fact that different blogs refer to the Wikipedia article is not a valid argument for keeping or deleting the article.Beagel (talk) 08:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that other blogs are referring to Officer and Hayes' ideas as "Officer-Hayes Hypothesis" is a reason to keep the Wikipedia page, however.128.12.195.5 (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. Please see WP:DEL.Beagel (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question.Which criteria are you referring to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.195.5 (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason for deletion was provided by the nominator, which is 'Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms and original theories and conclusions'. What am referring is that fact that blogs referring to the article doesn't have any meaning in this context. In addition, blogs are not reliable sources. Beagel (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not for neologisms one creates as part of ones original research while reading Time (magazine) one day. Edison2 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The wikipedia article is a good short summary of what the TIME article did in fact say. If the article's summary is inaccurate, let people edit it to make it correct, however I don't think it's wrong, nor do I think that is the issue at hand.  I cannot find a publication by Ronald Reagan which states "Reaganomics," however there is a wikipedia page on it.  Reaganomics (not defined in the dictionary) is simply a way to refer to a set of policies.  Similarly, Officer-Hayes Hypothesis is simply a way of referring to a hypothesis presented by Officer and Hayes.  Also, a neologism is a creation of a word.  Officer-Hayes Hypothesis is not the creation of a word, it is a grammatically reasonable way to reference a hypothesis presented in a credible source (TIME Mag).  Additionally, the article is in fact a hypothesis.  The article describes a way in which the market COULD BE manipulated and concludes with a suggestion on how the ideas can be proven correct.  This dictionary example of a hypothesis.  Furthermore, the wikipedia page is not the only place where the phrase "officer-hayes hypothesis" appears.  Go to the Stanford University blog, go to www.freerepublic.com, or any of the other blogging sites where people are talking about this article.  The two sites I mentioned state "officer-hayes hypothesis" and have a link to the wikipedia page.  That is how I came across this debate.  Though these blog sites don't come up when you google "officer-hayes hypothesis," the officer-hayes hypothesis is in fact a frequently used phrase in describing the ideas (hypothesis) presented in the TIME Mag article.  I noted that there is a wikipedia page on "Riemann Hypothesis."  The phrase Riemann Hypothesis refers the the ideas presented by Riemann.  Riemann himself never labeled his ideas the "Riemann Hypothesis."  He promoted ideas, and the public labeled the ideas "Riemann Hypothesis."  People are calling TIME authors' ideas the "officer-hayes hypothesis."  This follows the same logic.    If the deletion of this page comes down to splitting hairs over the possibility that "officer-hayes hypothesis" is technically against Wikipedia's policies (although I think it is fine given the logic I've presented) we should rule on the side of leaving the page as it is.  The ideas, or hypothesis, presented in Officer and Hayes' work are unique, controversial, and very relevant to the world.ChrisJ6 (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I noticed the phrase used in a discussion on blogspot.com, which led me to google the phrase, finding the wikipedia article. When I saw it was up for deletion, I decided to sign up for wikipedia and put in my two cents.  There are two issues here: whether a hypothesis has been put forth in the article and where the phrase was coined.  On the first count, it is clear that the Time article presents an hypothesis; whether the description here is accurate is another story.  On the second, given that the term is being used on other sites, the neologism is not exclusively coming into existence here on wikipedia.  Just because Time does not use the phrase does not mean it has not come into existence.  Finally, to address a claim made above about googling...given that the article came out very recently (as did discussion), google is not picking up the results yet.  Also, because of the nature of these new comments, they will be isolated and not have a lot of links, therefore not coming up in google's search algorithm.  Radilam (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question. Is there any mainstream media using 'Officer-Hayes Hypothesis'? Blogs and comments are not reliable sources (please see WP:RS and WP:V).Beagel (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I believe that is an incorrect interpretation of WP:RS and WP:V because we are not talking about the content of the wikepedia page nor are we talking about the reliability of the source of the hypothesis (TIME Magazine, authors from Stanford University).  We are referring to the way in which one chooses to label said hypothesis.  Are you implying that a hypothesis published by notable sources by authors X and Y needs to be given the label "X and Y's hypothesis" by a mainstream media source before that information can be displayed on Wikipedia under the title X and Y's hypothesis?128.12.195.5 (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question. Can you think of a more appropriate way to label the hypothesis laid out by Officer and Hayes?ChrisJ6 (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is not what I think, the question is if there any reliable source which labels this hypothesis as 'Officer-Hayes Hypothesis'. If not, it would be original research and neologism.Beagel (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep To address WP:OR, there is no original research on this wikipedia page - it is a summary of the hypothesis that is laid out in the original article.Radilam (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please don't add 'keep' or 'delete' several times. Thank you.Beagel (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Radilam - While I agree with you that the article should stay, I disagree that Officer-Hayes Hypothesis is a neologism.  It is a phrase, not a word.  Additionally, it is the most simple way to refer to the ideas presented by Officer and Hayes.  I don't feel that Officer-Hayes Hypothesis is something to be coined.  It's simple expression (one which people are using).  Perhaps Officer and Hayes' hypothesis could be viewed less of a "coined phrase," however apostrophes are bad in titles.ChrisJ6 (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Same here, please don't add 'keep' or 'delete' several times. Thank you. Splette :) How's my driving? 10:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here's a simple question to voters for inclusion: is is Officer-Hayes hypothesis or maybe it is Hayes-Officer hypothesis? Who chose the order of hames, considering that neither academia nor the media has used this combination so far? NVO (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom Splette :) How's my driving? 09:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question. To Splette: Any reason other than opinion?ChrisJ6 (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this hypothesis is a neologism and (as it seems) has been mentioned a single time in a newspaper article, thus non notable nor encyclopediac. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If this hypothesis gets established and proper media coverage that would be different... In fact even worse. This is WP:OR. The article doesn't even mention 'Officer-Hayes Hypothesis', that is something the wikipedia editor came up with. As far as I see someone voiced his opinion by writing a TIMES newspaper article and we need to have a wikipedia article about it? That is certainly not what an encyclopedia is for. Splette :) How's my driving? 10:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question to ChrisJ6 and Radilam: I notice both of your accounts were created today and both of you pretty much edited the article in question only. Coincidence? Just a question, no offense... Splette :) How's my driving? 10:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nope, not a coincidence.  I don't want to speak for Radilam (we're not the same person, if that's what you were implying) but it appears that both of us care a lot about this posting.  Personally, I think the TIME article is compelling and introduces a very novel hypothesis which deserves scrutiny by everyone.  The article came out yesterday, and like Radilam, when I saw that the hypothesis was going to be taken down, I wanted to step in.  It's not too often that you read an article in a mainstream publication such as TIME which is so novel and provocative.  I can definitely understand why Radilam would create an account simply to help this posting.  Go read, or re-read, the article, you might just like it.  And BTW, it's not an opinion piece written in TIMES, it is a logical (fairly academic for a mainstream media source) hypothesis published in TIME Magazine - not a newspaper. :)ChrisJ6 (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It was just confirmed by the checkuser procedure that ChrisJ6 and Radilam are the same person.Beagel (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have just had a look at the actual article since I am interested in peak oil and related articles as well. However, the point is not if this hypothesis is right or wrong or new and provocative. An encyclopedia is certainly the wrong place to spread novel hypotheses. You may want to have a look at what wikipedia is not. Splette :) How's my driving? 11:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am convinced that Officer and Hayes' hypothesis is quite Encyclopedic in nature.ChrisJ6 (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think that appropriate way to present this information should be article Oil market manipulation, which should describe different theories (and may include also hypothesis by Officer and Hayes), methods and examples of the oil market manipulation.Beagel (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per WP:OR and WP:NEO and per the attempt to manipulate discussion results using sock puppetry.Beagel (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: TIME is a reliable secondary source when it reports, but is a primary source when it opines. The defense "the TIME article is compelling and introduces a very novel hypothesis" clearly indicates it is being used as a primary source for a neologism. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: just a definition of a neologism. Already has a mention in the relevant section of Oil price increases since 2003, and any new information from reliable sources will obviously be placed in the appropriate articles.  WP is not responsible for what blogs link to, but it's cool that they feel WP is better to link to than the Time article.  Could also be mentioned in conspiracy theory articles (not judging whether it is true or not, just saying that it is a conspiracy theory).  98.235.103.32 (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: New article oil market manipulation is a good idea, regardless of what happens here.Radilam (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, block sockpuppet abusers, and close the book on this. JuJube (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no subject, no need for at article on just a Times article, WP:NEO. Better blame Crab People. NVO (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2008 (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.