Deletion of Ladder theory (2nd nomination)

Comment: AlmostReadytoFly: Although the notability of this topic is certainly debatable, it certainly should not have to conform to the requirements at , as you contend in your nomination. "Ladder theory" is not a website.  applies to websites. Ergo, that argument is irrelevant. The  argument is a bit trickier, but Google indicates that several third-party publications have covered the topic. (It should be noted, however, that many or most of the 569 Google Books hits cited by UltraMagnus are about the ladder theories of education, economics, agriculture, etc.) In any case, I don't have a problem with keeping an article about marginally notable pop psychobabble so long as the article prominently represents (this one does) that its subject is "pseudoscientific," "unsubstantiated," and "has never appeared in a referenced journal or scientific forum," and that "its proponents cite no studies or data sets to support their conclusions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB||WP:RS)