Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet theory second AFD
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. --at 07:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pet theory
Nomination for deletion Fails
WP:DICDEF. Inaccurate/misleading or at least unsourced/unproven claim that a common language phrasing is a specific kind of scientific jargon. The quote shown in the article does not prove anything about jargon (and presents a poor and misleading interpretation of the quote), only that the writer is using a common English term, "pet". The external link leads to a newspaper article (about an artist's theory about a particular aspect of the history of art) which only uses the term in the headline. "Pet theory" is used to mean "especially favourite/cherished" theory but the term "pet" can be used in the same way for other contexts. E.g. as this dictionary definition puts it:"pet: , a. Petted; indulged; admired; cherished; as, a pet child; a pet lamb; a pet theory; a pet animal.Some young lady's pet curate.". At best, the term could be a bit of scientific slang i.e. a dictionary definition (but again there is no proof of this given). The previous afd (ended in no consensus in May 2005... article has not improved substantially since then) revolved around the dicdef issue: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet theory . Bwithh 16:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
- Hmmm. I just realized that my last afd nom was for Pet peeve (AfD discussion) about 4 days ago. Funny... the coincidence didn't occur to me until 30 mins later, and I came across both terms as the first afd-able article through "random article" clicking rather than seeking them out Bwithh 16:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. ]
- Delete. WP:DICDEF; quote from Eddington is kind of irrelevant to the thesis. Also I can't see any way to expand this stub into something respectable. HEL 21:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - OP simply mis-parsed the Eddington quote. Michael K. Edwards 09:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.