Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratfall 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Pratfall effect

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This has dubious progeny as a term, even as technical terminology. Linguistically, this term can be covered by a dictionary, as it is unlikely to ever become an encyclopedic term. More could be written debating this term's inclusion than can be written about it. Move it to a dictionary or delete it. I like to saw logs! (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Surprised me, I'll admit, but there's (hopefully) not going to be more written in this AFD than has been written about it.  In addition to the Psychonomic Science article currently cited, there are papers about this topic in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the Central States Speech Journal (now renamed Communication Studies), Research in Higher Education, and the Journal of Consumer Research, among others. A Google Books search is also highly productive.  Article needs expansion, not deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This topic is covered in many reliable sources, and appears to be a psychological term, rather than a definition. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep. The term a) has rock-solid academic/research foundations, and b) is deeply embedded in popular culture. I have added half-a-dozen references (of types (a) and (b)) and as Squeamish Ossifrage points out, we can easily add a hundred more. The term is not merely a dictionary usage but has rich social, political, sporting, management and academic connotations which a dictionary could not hope to cover. My brief draft of the body of the article touches on these aspects, and there is plentiful scope for others wiser than me to add much more in due time.
 * PS: Squeamish Ossifrage, could you pop your citaitons into the article? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2011 (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.