Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thermostat Fallacy


 * 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. There were a couple of sincere keep votes in this debate, but the fact that the article proved useful to someone is not a sufficient basis for an article. Policy requires that the article be supported by reliable sourcing, and Agyle's analysis shows that the sourcing is lacking in independence and/or reliability. There was also a proposal to merge, but the consensus is that the current content is original research, and that is not remedied by merging it into another article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  19:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thermostat Fallacy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While there are reliable sources in the article, the term "Thermostat fallacy" is not found anywhere on the internet outside of this article, while the term "thermostat error" as used in the article is not covered in any other source. I almost nominated it for speedy deletion as either A10 or A11; however, I'm open towards merging whatever salvageable content there is to another article though. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: The term "thermostat error" as used in the article is referred to in the industry (e.g. http://www.heatingcoolingservice.com/thermostat-101-a-common-error/ - this is actually the first reference cited in the article) and colloquially (see, for example, here: http://archives.grantstavely.com/the-thermostat-fallacy/).


 * Keep - I happened across this article only because I was using variations of thermostat/ic or temperature or "climate control" and myth/fallacy/error in Google searches and largely going nowhere - this article usefully applies to common scenarios for which there does not seem to be a body of work under the one heading (although there are plenty of minor references touching the subject). I have not been able to locate any other suitable Wikipedia articles that this content could be merged into, feel free to list them for consideration, or suggest an alternate title that would be satisfactory - there is however an opportunity to link to this article from the existing Hysteresis article, as the Control Systems section (second paragraph) could be extended to describe the relationship between the switch state, the furnace state, and the desired temperature goal (which is the scenario this article addresses, among others) Fredericksarcher (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is unknown how popular this topic might be given more time (WP:CARES, WP:CHANCE); Alternatives have not been proposed for where this specific (granted, niche) topic might live elsewhere (WP:WITHIN); Obscurity does not automatically mean not notable (WP:OBSCURE, WP:JNN, WP:ZEAL); It's a new article and could still use some refinement and time which might help (WP:UGLY, WP:POTENTIAL, WP:NOTIMELIMIT). No doubt there are plenty of reasons working against it as well, but I found it and then had to create a Wikipedia account just to write these comments (double win?).  I am not the author and don't have a vested interest in the article, but I have already shared it with people I know do not understand the issue! Fredericksarcher (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to !vote twice. Stalwart 111  06:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - pure, unadulterated synthesis, plain and simple, based on a blog post. None of the "sources" even mention (from what I can see) "Thermostat Fallacy" and others simply dot-point common misunderstandings about how control systems work. That's not topic that requires encyclopaedic coverage and it obviously isn't notable. This blog post (from the talk page) says it all - a term some kid made up to explain something his dad told him about. Stalwart 111  06:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. If it's not studied, then it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.  Encyclopedias do not lead research.  "It's useful" is not a defense for original research.  This could maybe be listed at list of common misconceptions.  I'm sure those trivia-hounds over there would love it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. As the author of the article I'll make the following points:
 * Firstly, I can confirm that there is no basis whatsoever to the accusation that this was based on the Grant Stavely blog-post, though I did see the blog relatively late in the piece. The genesis of the article was a discussion with a friend, a search for an article that ties these related fallacies together, and later, the decision to write the page.  It's easy to throw around accusations; the truth is less simple.
 * "If it's not studied it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia" is fair, but the second reference shows it is studied.
 * If it's worthwhile putting in a list of common mis-conceptions then it's in Wikipedia. It's logically inconsistent to say that it's not worthy of entry in an encyclopaedia, and then to propose its entry in another article!
 * As to deletion under A10, no-one has proposed that this duplicates an existing article.
 * As to deletion under A11, no-one has made the suggestion that I coined the term (and I didn't - Grant Stavely's post clearly pre-dates this).
 * As to Grant Stevely being "some kid" (and as an aside, so what if he was?) although I don't know how old he is, the fact he's been blogging since 1999 suggests he's a little older than that! Argumentum ad hominim is, I believe, the name for this flaw in argument: a.k.a. attacking the man.Andrew tune (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Article fails to meet notability criteria (see WP:GNG), which requires significant coverage of a topic in multiple independent reliable sources. As with the nominator, I couldn't find any reliable sources that mention Thermostat Fallacy, or Thermostat Error in the sense it's used in this article. Their use in a personal and a company blog (e.g., grantstavely.com and heatingcoolingservice.com) doesn't matter because these are not reliable sources (see WP:RS). Fredericksarcher's suggestion that the information is useful and that the article should be given time to gain in popularity does not address the notability requirements, and Andrew tune also fails to address notability. Agyle (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge into list of common misconceptions, perhaps as "thermostat error". We don't publish original research, nor do we normally cite blogs, sorry. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * While I could definitely see merging material into that article (it could be included whether or not this article is deleted), I would do so without assigning a name to the phenomenon. As noted, "thermostat fallacy" or "thermostat error" are not supported by reliable sources. Agyle (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)