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 No consensus, but cleanup. Arguments were equally valid on both sides. If, however, this article isn't cleaned up to address the concerns of the delete voters, this article should probably be re-nominated for AfD in the near future. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this article is original research. This motif does not appear to be elsewhere attested, and many of the examples of this motif do not match the definition provided. Unless anybody can provide a reference to an article defining and describing this motif, it should probably be deleted. Mdcohn 02:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The term itself barely appears to rise above the level of a neologism, as attested by this dismal Google search returning mostly blog entries. Furthermore, the article makes no effort to correlate its indiscriminate list with the term using verifiable reputable sources, leading to the inescapable conclusion that this is original research, at best. Serpent's Choice 03:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR/neologism, and all I can find on Google is Wikipedia mirrors, blogs, and sites for buying looking up sample term papers for reference use only. Opabinia regalis 03:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While this article could be improved, the phrase "motif of harmful sensation" does in fact have a standard meaning in folklore and narratology, where it does in fact refer generally to the harmful effect of unpleasant experiences such as seeing Medusa's head, reading the Necronomicon or watching The Ring. What's there now could be improved, but it's a reasonable start. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very reason that I recommended this article for deletion was because I tried searching for a definition and explanation for the term in order to clarify the article but could not find anything to suggest that this was a standard term with a standard meaning (everything I found on Google seemed to be derivative of this very article, and some quick searches on JSTOR and Google Scholar yielded nothing at all). Indeed, I actually like the idea of the article very much, and I would be delighted if, as you say, this is an accepted term with an accepted definition. The suggestion that you make further down that the Aarne-Thompson motif index be consulted is an excellent one, and I will try to go down to the university library and do that later in the week if I'm still in town. So far, though, I haven't found any evidence that suggests that term wasn't invented by the article's original author. - Mdcohn 19:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To follow up, I did consult Thompson’s motif index, and there is no equivalent category that I can find. There are, for example, entries for the Looking Taboo (C300-399), which includes such cases as the sight of a deity and the Lady Godiva incident; the Death Giving Glance (D2061.1.2.1), which includes tales of gorgons, basilisks, and a reference to the evil eye (which, in my opinion, is not a case of the Motif of Harmful Sensation); and Extraordinary Madness (F1041.8), which includes madness from seeing an ugly ogre, madness from hearing a prophetic voice, madness from seeing a beautiful woman, etc. But as far as I can tell there is no motif or class of motifs that generally refers to harm caused by perception. The best that I can think of is the nebulous F1041 group, which deals with extraordinary physical reactions. Most of the examples in the Wikipedia article would fit here, but there is a great deal that is unrelated. This, of course, is only proof that the Motif of Harmful Sensation isn’t attested in and has no direct analog in Thompson (at least that I could find). I will try to continue looking, though. - Mdcohn 00:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Though I enjoy this article (and have edited it in the past), I agree with the nominator that the term "motif of harmful sensation" is a neologism, and the article is an example of original research. The original author has pointed out these issues on the article's talk page (notice also the old peer review for this article), with no real resolution. Granted, this is a pretty well-researched article and does provide a useful neologism -- however, neologisms are unencyclopedic and Wikipedia should not contain original research. If one could find a term or concept currently in use that is equivalent to "the motif of harmful sensation," and create a new Wikipedia entry for this non-neologistic concept, then the article could be salvaged, as this new entry could probably incorporate much of this article's current content. However, until that time, our duty (sad though it may be) is to delete this article as original research. Best, Docether 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification. Though the original nominator correctly points out that "many of the examples of this motif do not match the definition provided," that's not really pertinent to discussions of article deletion. A good edit of the article could clear up these problems ... however, you'd still end up with a well-edited article based on original research, which is sufficient for its deletion. -- Docether 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it turns out that the phrase "motif of harmful sensation" had its origin here, it certainly has gotten around since then. Next time I am at the big library, I will check and see if there is anything in the Aarne-Thompson motif index that this might be retitled as. It might also be profitably related to Frazer's Golden Bough discussion of taboos, the famous "Not to touch the Earth, not to see the Sun" line springs into mind. It may be that all that is needed is a change of title, perhaps to something like Taboo in folktale and literature. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you believe that the motif of harmful sensation is a subgenre of the taboo, then you may want to consider proposing that this article be merged with the article on taboo. Personally, I believe that the motif of harmful sensation, as defined in the article, is explicitly separate from the taboo "motif". To avoid clogging up this thread, let's take that discussion to the article's talk page. Why don't you start a section there on this subject? I think it would be a useful discussion, and might clear up some of the arguably overbroad inclusions in the article itself. -- Docether 16:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, if you can find a verifiable source (preferably offline) that uses the term "motif of harmful sensation" as a term of art/science, that would be great. Then we could use that source's definition of the motif as a starting-point for a less-OR rewrite of this article, and I'll happily change my vote to keep. -- Docether 16:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While the concepts this article discusses may be sound in some form, the article as it exists appears to refer to a neologism and is definately original research. Indrian 16:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A fascinating and well researched article. The demand for deletion seems to stem from the title being a neologism. The notion of harm from looking at or hearing something is obviously not OR. By that standard many articles have neologisms as titles. The article gives many instances of fiction or legends where harm comes from seeing or hearing something. The Mark Twain "Punch conductor, punch with care" story cited has been a favorite all my life. So do not read the title as a neologism, read it as the title of an article! There should be a Wikipedia somewhere (Deleteopedia?) for excellent articles like this when they get the boot from wikipedia by overzealous deletionists. I have saved a copy of it for future reference, but it should not be necessary for anyone to do so.Edison 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And just how can you call this article well-researched when not one source is used to justify the name given to the article or the definition ascribed to said term? All I see is a user-defined term and a bunch of randomly selected occurances that do not all fit the definition. You also have completely misunderstood the reasons people are asking for deletion. To say that the concept of harm coming from seeing or hearing something is not original research would be correct. To say that this concept has the precise definition suggested by the article title and body and that this definition is accepted by the academic community without sources to back that up is original research until proven otherwise. At least one user has attempted to find proof that this is a valid term of art and failed. Either provide a reputable source or two that shows this term is valid and generally accepted or save comments like "well-researched" for an article that deserves it. Indrian 20:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Edison. It could use a tag requesting citations, but I don't see that as a reason to delete this article. I find the article interesting, whether or not the title might be a neologism. .AuburnPilot^Talk 00:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it’s interesting, but the very problem is that there are no citations to be found, as far as I can find. Google searches, searches on academic databases, and my own research with the Thompson Motif Index have yielded nothing. How can we go about defining this term when it has no academically accepted definition, and what authority do we turn to when we wonder whether the definition is correct or whether an example used in the article is truly an instance of this motif (as you can see, there is some small debate over some of these things on the talk page)? We are supplying our own definition, and that is certainly original research (as interesting as our own definition may be). Mdcohn 16:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is precisely why we have templates like ((references)). It's better to request citations than simply delete an article because it doesnt have them. If deleting articles without citations was a good idea, I would have nominated Alabama a couple weeks ago. Instead, I added the ((references)) template and began adding some citations. Within a few days, other editors did the same. AuburnPilot^Talk 01:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is not that the article doesn’t have any citations; the problem is that no references or citations for this motif seem to exist. Indeed, the article’s original creator long ago admitted that he invented this term because he didn’t know what to call it, and nobody has ever been able to provide any references to any kind of literature regarding what it should actually be called and therefore what the definition should actually be. In fact, there was a peer review over two years ago to address this problem, and it failed to provide any references, citations, or conclusions on the subject. It is not as though this is a well-established idea and some references are missing – this term and its definition were invented because the original author was unsure about what to call it, and as far as anybody has said there is no attested motif that would be a good analog. Mdcohn 04:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. One of the primary arguments being advanced is that the phrase "motif of harmful sensation" is not already in use. I suggest that while the premise may be correct, the conclusion is misguided. Suppose there were two words that described concepts suitable for a Wikipedia article; each word has a long history of usage in the literature and so there is no question of either being a neologism. They also happen to be describing the same concept. Do we create independent articles, each one on a different word for the same concept? No, and this is my point: Wikipedia has articles on things, not the labels of those things. Nobody may have yet come up with a good word for the common factor between the Gorgons and the shriek of the mandrake and the Zahir and Monty Python's joke-warfare sketch, but that does not mean that there is no subject there. As for whether it would be original research to collate extant examples of that common factor, I think insisting on that interpretation would be at the very least pressing the letter of the rules to the detriment of their spirit; it strikes me as not unlike protesting an article on Celebrities who have had wardrobe malfunctions on the basis that, even though reliable sources can be found verifying that each celebrity on the list meets the criteria, no reliable source can be found that previously placed all those celebrities on such a list. (There does seem to be original research in the article, as well as a number of examples of sensation that is not harmful but led to harm, such as Actaeon being blinded, not by peeping at Artemis, but by Artemis as punishment for peeping. These are cleanup matters, though, not valid arguments for deletion.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:11, 11 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.