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. Since no-one was able to provide evidence in the past 2.5 years that this concept has been a subject of research by competent/reliable sources (under this or any other name), the whole article constitutes original research (literally) on the concept. WP:TIND works on the assumption that someone will fix the article someday, but (per the previous sentence) it is not clear that the article is fixable in the first place, especially since the adjournment of the first AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motif of harmful sensation

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

An original essay, a smart collection of deaths with causes ranging from seeing the fact of God to epileptic seizures due to flashing light. The term is nowhere near commonly accepted, but slowly creeps over the internet and even in print leaking from wikipedia clones. The concerns of the previous no-consensus AfD were not addressed in 2 years. Time to stop it. - 7-bubёn >t 22:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On re-reading the previous AfD, I'm persuaded by Smerdis of Tlon's cogent argument. WP:TIND applies, I think.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TIND cannot overrule WP:NOR. - 7-bubёn >t 20:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and arguments in previous nom. Besides being a neologism, this constitutes original research (synthesizing separate concepts). While I happen to think the idea itself is quite interesting, it needs to be written about in a research paper or even on a blog, not created in an encyclopedia. Matt Deres (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Ruthlessly vet this article afterwards, but I have a feeling there will be plenty of sources to back up this article.Bildstit (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above user was just blocked as a likely sock of a banned user.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A feeling alone is not enough. To make WP:TIND count, you need to prove such sources actually exist. The original research claim implies they don't exist, so the way to counter this AFD is to prove the opposite. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The concept has not been described in reliable sources and as such combining several elements like this constitutes original research. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — One great big pile of WP:OR. roux 16:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Practically all of the article is original research, and the term does not seem to be in widespread usage. Google comes up with only WP mirrors. There are, as far as I could see, no 3-rd party sources to attest that this is anything more than an essay or neologism. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 16:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes, original research and no reliable sources discussing this, uhm, "phenomon" at all. Clearly an essay. clearly a delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Fine, I co-nominate Examples of the motif of harmful sensation in fiction and Category:Motif of harmful sensation for deletion on the grounds that if this article goes, so should they. (Am I the only person who's looked hard enough to find these things?)
But my position is still keep. This is a real literary theme, though it may not always be called "motif of harmful sensation".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source, for example, "Perception" in the Encyclopedia of fantasy, ISBN 1857233689, p.750.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that encyclopedia made up several terms for extant phenomena. This encyclopedia shouldn't. pablo_hablo. 20:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, and I'd welcome suggestions on how this extant phenomenon should be retitled. We could go with "Perception (Encyclopedia of Fantasy)", but I hope someone with access to a real reference work on literary themes and motifs will chime in with a better name.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although this dates from the "sources-schmources" days, the topic has a place in an encyclopedia and it has the potential to be sourced. As Marshall notes, there seems to be no common name for this as a literary device, although the "Don't look!!!!" theme is fairly common and hasn't gone unnoticed [1]. It's not quite the same as forbidden fruit nor a curse, so neither of those would be a good merge target. If it's deleted, it looks like this invented term stayed up long enough to be immortalized in a book [2]. The Wikipedia article is the source for the Webster's quotation, as seen by the "WP" at the end. We should all be so lucky. Mandsford (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding rude "it has the potential to be sourced" - please prove it by providing such sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The material in this article has its place in wikipedia, but not together in this article. ("Evil eye" would do for most of it). The term seems the invention of the author of the article. If someone can find a term for the general concept as used by anyone, then the article could be kept under the new title. DGG (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have notified the person who started the article of this discussion, in the hope of clarification. I see no sign that anyone has tried to discuss it with them. Given the unusual nature of the article, some clarification would help. DGG (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for asking. It struck me, back around WP's 3rd anniversary, that there clearly is such a well-established motif, even if i didn't know a name for it, and i created the stub, and used the most descriptive title i could think of. I communicated with Angela Beesley, with some chagrin, upon its appearance as a DYK, bcz the DYK said "Joke Warfare" was an example "of the motif of harmful sensation", which i regarded as implying the title was an established term, tho i did not recall having heard anyone use it before me. On the other hand, what the title intends is i think made clear in the lead, and asserted as a description of the scope of the article, not as an established term.
  --Jerzy•t 06:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an OR essay. Them From Space 05:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Essay? A list of facts is an essay?
  --Jerzy•t 06:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kp My intention in starting the article was not OR (which doesn't count for anything unless someone makes the claim that i obviously intended to do OR). The descriptions of the effect of Medusa's appearance, and of the effect of the sirens' voices, and so on, make it self-evident in each case that the thing named is an instance in literature of sensations that are harmful by the fact of sensing the stimulus.
The compilation of such clearly similar things is not within what OR means; the explicit exclusion from OR of Routine calculations makes it crystal clear that the even more straightforward and routine compilation of examples of a something is not OR. Discussants who think they've found evidence of OR here sound to me like they have never seen an article written by an editor who read something and thought about it and drew their own conclusion from it. Have we really being deleting objective compilations of well sourced or easily sourced facts, that don't draw conclusions, without the Del advocates being accused of WP:JDLI? Repetitions of the same argument, that doesn't apply to the article, are treated supposed to be treated as absence of any argument.
Since one discussant referred to "synthesizing separate concepts", it is important to consult specifically WP:SYNTH, which focuses on compiling published facts to advance a conclusion. It says in part "Summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing". (Now, if the article has been expanded to say w/o refs that

some of these came into being bcz of earlier ones, or
that there is a fundamental human psychological mechanism that causes writers to invent ways of using such conceptions in their creations, or
that such beliefs are common among psychopathic delusions,

that's OR and i support sourcing or removing those assertions, but that is irrelevant to the retention of the article.)
--Jerzy•t 06:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete An interesting article, but it is original research because it fails WP:SYNTH: the author puts together many various things and creates an apparently new notion, which is not shown to be treated in literature in this form. Laudak (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a fine read, and I like it, but it is a synthesis. pablo_hablo. 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per "make it self-evident in each case". Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — this is an appropriate topic for encyclopaedic coverage. The article could use some work, sure; mebbe this rescue crew can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete original research. Two years since the last AFD and no improvement; WP:TIND doesn't mean "keep crap around forever". ~ Ameliorate ! 04:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of the arguments so far

Delete	Keep
Original research	Not original research
Synthesis	A recognised literary theme
No reliable sources	Source provided
Doesn't come up on google	That's because it has the wrong title
Essay	Not an essay - and so what if it is?

Did I miss anything?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:56, 31 March 2009 (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.