Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Psychology: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,341,353 edits
Line 8: Line 8:
==Psychology==
==Psychology==
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedant}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Bukoff}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Bukoff}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Unprocessed_Child}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Unprocessed_Child}}

Revision as of 03:25, 4 May 2024

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Psychology. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Psychology|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Psychology. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Science.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

See also: Behavioural science-related deletions


Psychology

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. There is no consensus to delete. Arguments for moving to Pedantry are strong, but that is outside the scope of this AfD. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedant

Pedant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dictionary definition with etymology. Violates WP:NOTDICT. - Skipple ☎ 03:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Pedantry, as per Chiswick Chap. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't wish to be, er. pedantic here, but the criterion for notability is not whether the article is poorly-cited, but whether there are suitable sources out there in the world. Pedantry is unfortunately definitely a notable topic. Sources include the famous essay Of Pedantry by Michel de Montaigne, alongside a mass of modern research papers on a wide variety of aspects of pedantry. A good newspaper article is Why do pedants pedant? in The Guardian. There's plenty more out there. The article needs to be rewritten, but that's not a matter for AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This feels... pedantic... but I agree with your argument yet think it supports a move to Pedantry. Orange sticker (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would make good sense, yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree with the creation of Pedantry but it seems that would be a new article rather than a move of the current article. Certainly once it's created we can redirect, but until that's the case I'm not convinced Pedant should remain. - Skipple ☎ 13:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. This is just a dictionary definition with a couple of cites. Per WP:!, it needs expansion to be useful which might be possible. If someone does this then perhaps reconsider.Ldm1954 (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there editors up for rewriting this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz If needed, I can put this on my backlog. I have a few major tasks that I wanted to complete beforehand, but I volunteer to fix article up if it is kept and/or moved. Thanks,NeuropolTalk 14:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and move to pedantry. This is certainly notable, and could be expanded greatly. Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but pedantry as a concept is a very notable topic which could be applied to the fields of psychology, linguistics, and sociology. Deletion should not be a substitution for improvement. Thanks,NeuropolTalk 13:57, 21 May 2024 (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.
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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Bukoff

Allen Bukoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any sources on this guy anywhere. There are a few papers but they have few citations and he's hardly ever first or last author. WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC are both failed. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2024 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Unprocessed Child

The Unprocessed Child (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the topic of the article appears to be mostly unnotable and the entire article is unsourced, with the only outgoing links leading to a personal website, and the publishers website. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2024 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 11:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Systogram

Systogram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The author of this article appears to have created it merely to plug his own creation ("Jack Dikian invented the concept of the systogram..."). However, of all the references in the article, none appear to actually refer to a "systogram" apart from those authored by Dikian. So I can only suppose that the concept is not-notable and the article was created only for self-promotion. Black Kite (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article creator edits practically only to promote himself, this article is nothing more than advertising for himself. GraziePrego (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing I can say that the original nom hasn't already said better. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia isn't for things made up one day. Samoht27 (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotional and maybe block creator too as a spammer Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2024 (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.
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 keep‎. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven James Bartlett

Steven James Bartlett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR, appears to be a vanity page Psychastes (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However BLP is bloated and needs pruning to 20% of current. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak delete unless someone provides more RSes - the existence of Steven Bartlett (businessman) makes searching for sources quite annoying, but I managed to find a few. Here is an extended discussion of his book The Pathology of Man: A Study of Human Evil but I'm not sure about the journal or if the reviewer is an independent source. Other sources I found are briefer mentions, e.g. [4][5], or I don't have access (also unsure about the journal here) [6]. Shapeyness (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep -- slightly over the notability level for WP:AUTHOR and right at the edge for WP:PROF, based on citations, appointments, and reviews. I actually disagree with Xxanthippe though on the pruning part. If the subject is notable then the information there is the type of thing someone looking up information about the subject (biography, etc.) would like to know. But that's for post AfD discussion. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:Author and passes WP:Prof, meets criteria 1,2. Like [7] respectfully disagree with Xxanthippe re the pruning part since biographers find this category of information important.
Additional references that refer to Bartlett’s published work, accessed today:
  1. Martin, B. (2020). "Tactics against scheming diseases." Journal of Sociotechnical Critique, 1(1), 1–20. https://social-epistemology.com/2019/01/31/technology-and-evil-brian-martin/
  2. Martin, Brian. "Evil institutions: Steven Bartlett’s analysis of human evil and its relevance for anarchist alternatives," Anarchist Studies, vol. 29, no. 1, 2021, pp. 88-110. [8]
  3. Meissner, W. W. "The Pathology of Man: A Study of Human Evil. By Steven James Bartlett." Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, Vol. 71, No. 3 (Summer 2007), 267-268. [9]. Review begins with "The subject matter of this treatise is far-reaching and profound" and ends with the conclusion: "Psychologists and psychotherapists will find this a challenging and thought provoking approach that makes a significant contribution."
  4. Suarez, Alejandra Review of two books by Bartlett: "The worst devils of our nature." PsychCritiques, June 13, 2012, Vol. 57, Release 23, Article 2. [10]. "Because the books present such an unusual stance that can provoke thoughtful consideration of the accepted truths in psychology, I highly recommend them."
  5. Martin, Brian. "Technology and Evil." Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 8, no. 2 (2019): 1-14. [11]
  6. Martin, Brian. "What if most people love violence?" Waging Nonviolence, 3 May 2019. [12]
  7. Martin, Brian. "Whistleblowers versus evil." The Whistle, No. 96, October 2018, pp. 4-5. [13]
  8. West, Marcus. Book review: "Bartlett, Steven James, The Pathology of Man." The Journal of Analytical Psychology, Volume 51, No. 3, June, 2006, pp. 486-7. [14]. Review ends with the conclusion "This is certainly a classic work of reference in the field."
  9. Martin, Brian. "When to Read a Heavy Tome." Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 11 (8), 2022: pp. 84-89. [15]
  10. Critique of Impure Reason by Steven James Bartlett cited in Ruffing, Margit. "Kant-Bibliographie 2020," Kant-Studien, vol. 113, no. 4, 2022, pp. 725-760. [16]
  11. García, Luis Felipe. "Introducción a Crítica De La Razón Impura: Horizontes De Posibilidad Y Sentido. Revista De Investigación Filosófica Y Teoría Social, Dialectika, 2021, 3 (7): pp. 63-70. Translation into Spanish of Bartlett’s book Critique of Impure Reason.[17].
  12. O’Kane, Aisling Ann; Park, Sun Young; Mentis, Helena; Blandford, Ann and Chen, Yunan. "Turning to Peers: Integrating Understanding of the Self, the Condition, and Others’ Experiences in Making Sense of Complex Chronic Conditions." Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 25, 2016, pp. 477–501. DOI 10.1007/s10606-016-9260-y. Discusses and cites Bartlett’s book, Normality Does Not Equal Mental Health. [18]
  13. Martin, Brian. "Research Grants and Agenda Shaping Research Grants and Agenda Shaping." In Allen, David M. and Howell, James W. (eds.), Groupthink in Science: Greed, Pathological Altruism, Ideology, Competition, and Culture (Springer, 2020), pp. 77-83. [19]
Toh59 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2024 (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.
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. Those arguing for deletion showed that this article is an egregious case of WP:OR in the particularly delicate topic area of clinical psychology. Some 'keep' !voters pointed to the topics prevalence in popular discourse, but this needn't imply automatic inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Modussiccandi (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiled child

Spoiled child (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is unencyclopaedic mess of original research. This simply does not belong here. This needs WP:TNT at the very least. TarnishedPathtalk 03:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfecnot (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this concept is very notable. While it's true this article in its current state is essentially just someones opinion piece, and contains what is likely their own observations, it's not unfixable, we should keep this article, and edit it into an acceptable place. Samoht27 (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to a lack of keep rationale. It'd be helpful if someone could how this concept is supposedly notable and why we shouldn't WP:TNT.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would comment as well, not necessarily strictly psychological, additionally a term in literature and history. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I seriously doubt the competence of all the !keep voters. Not just subject matter competence, but wiki/afd policy competence. What's next? Let's create Angry child and Happy child...because obviously these "concepts are very notable". Obviously. But also very unsuitable for an ecyclopedia. This article is a high-school level essay with WP:OR, which will later evolve into a messy synthesis. Spoiling in early childhood tends to create characteristic reactions that persist, fixed, into later life. These can cause significant social problems. Spoiled children may have difficulty coping with situations such as teachers scolding them or refusing to grant extensions on homework assignments, playmates refusing to allow them to play with their toys and playmates refusing playdates with them, a loss in friends, failure in employment, and failure with personal relationships. Wow, an excellent scientific prognosis of something which isn't a recognized disorder. What is this joke? Reads like 13 steps to deal with spoiled child- wikihow, but much worse. As Maile points out, Wikipedia should not be giving medical definitions and possible ways to handle it. This isn't just banal crap. This is dangerous for readers. I advise keep voters to not participate in afd's. This is not a WP:TNT article. This is outside the scope of wikipedia, and should not be recreated. — hako9 (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notably the creator of this article got permabanned for creating/editing exactly this sort of content and not taking advice over many years that they needed to stop. TarnishedPathtalk 02:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Imagine a parent of "spoiled" child reading the article and the child suffering the consequences. — hako9 (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, this is exactly the sort of pseudo-health advice which shouldn't be on Wikipedia. TarnishedPathtalk 07:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I retort, WP:SOFIXIT. Not unfixable -- could use Alfie Kohn's The Myth of the Spoiled Child to debunk notions obviously popular enough to require a book just to debunk them. Term has 5K+ Google Scholar articles. Just improvable, not outside the scope. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Create an article on the book you mentioned. Or write a effin blog. Term has 5K+ Google Scholar articles. How many hits does happy child, naughty child, sad child or say, adventurous child have. Find some books on those too. — hako9 (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, think I’ll keep it right here. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm undecided between delete or reduce to a stub with TNT. I removed one completely unreferenced section which said literally nothing. Then I got to the "Treatment" section and that is what convinced me that the majority of the article is no good. The idea that a physician can prescribe "treatment" for a "spoiled" child is clear pseudo-medical misinformation and potentially harmful to our readers and their children. I think that the only way to save this, if we even want to, would be to move the referencing into the lede (which is not too bad) and then ditch the body entirely to make a stub. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is so obviously notable a concept in popular culture that a simple search will find dozens of sources. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If what you're claiming is true then it needs a WP:TNT at the very least and a rewrite as a stub. Anything more than a stub is bound to be a mess of WP:OR and dangerous pseudo-medical advise as we see with the current article. TarnishedPathtalk 05:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Really only "As syndrome" section must go. Or even be rewritten such that it makes clear that these are just scratched old theories. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its notable and AFD is not for cleanup. Desertarun (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for more perspectives to try and form a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Hako9. Article violates WP:SYNTH and is outside the scope of Wikipedia. The entire "of syndrome" section of the article is from one source. Swordman97 talk to me 02:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Befuddling how anybody can call a clearly notable and well-covered concept "outside the scope" when objections are to a single section of the article, not even an unsourced one. Argument needing to be made as for deletion not for keeping and cleaning up. So far, nobody has argued that this just isn’t a thing which exists in literature. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    when objections are to a single section of the article
    No. The section "Only children" is a deficient summary of the article Only children, which itself has a lot of issues. The section "Later life" makes extraordinary claims based on some book. The section "Infants" is taken from drspock.com, which apart from not being reliable, because it's a blog post giving general advice, also isn't verifiable. Read the source. It says, "I don't think you need to worry much about spoiling in the first month or even the first 6 months." Versus what's written in the article. "Babies cannot be spoiled in the first six months of life". I think this jump to conclusions, is what this article is all about. This article and all the contributors are incompetent to write on the subject. Secondary news sources that cite primary psychological research and behavioral studies often exaggerate their conclusions and fail to put up declaimers about how inconclusive the studies were, how small the sample size etc. I would qualify this article, and many others on wikipedia as 1000 times worse than the secondary mainstream news sources. This is a mish-mash of various theories, presented as facts. This afd reminds me of another afd I participated in. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge in Islam (2nd nomination). I understand that afd has no bearing here btw but, my point is, in that afd an editor made similar vapid arguments that you and Bearian make here; "afd is not a cleanup" and "omg look at the millions of books and google hits on the subject". Waste of time tbh. Wikipedia is not a publisher of school essays. — hako9 (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Demonstrate that cleanup is not possible. Use sources to show this. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Perennial point of contention mentioned at User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing (under its old title, "Spoiled brat"). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "until the latter got properly written" in reference to this article that we are currently discussing. TarnishedPathtalk 02:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources for this are of a character that there are not for those. Yes, it’s lazy to throw together a bunch of examples, call it an article. But equally lazy to ignore sources properly analyzing the thing as a thing. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is not encyclopaedic. It's an essay which is original research. TarnishedPathtalk 06:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fixable. Look, we have an article on Tragic hero and Tantrum, can handle this easily. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in a deletion discussion. This discussion has been going for a day shy of a month and it's as much of a mess of WP:OR now as when I nominated it. TarnishedPathtalk 03:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When argument for deletion revolves around this not being suitable for an encyclopedia to other stuff that is, other stuff is fair game. Incorrect that this is "as much of a mess." Language added now indicates that theories are just claims or assertions. Objection boils down to not liking what sources themselves conclude. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because the other stuff isn't being discussed here. TarnishedPathtalk 08:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems to me like a good candidate for WP:TNT on the basis of WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAP. Yes it is a term in use and perhaps if the page was just sub of the first paragraph we wouldn't be having this AfD. But pages are not college essays. So let's delete until someone can write a better page on the topic. JMWt (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this dangerous OR, WP:SYNTH violation. The sources are terrible. This is not simply an essay on a popular concept. This pseudopsych is presented as a behavioral syndrome replete with objective criteria and differential diagnosis when it is no such thing. I am a psychologist (a fact that is easily verified), and I know the dangerous potential of misrepresenting something as a clinical syndrome when it isn't one. Fixing the article would not simply be a matter of deleting the inappropriate sections because all that would be left would barely form a stub. As an admin, I really would like to close this as a delete because the delete !votes make the stronger case and, as people who don't like specific AfD outcomes love to harp on, it is not a vote. However, this has already been relisted too many times, so I feel I should weigh in with my own !vote, and I urge the closing admin to study the arguments and content carefully. At a glance, this may look like no consensus, but consensus is also about the strength of the case. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the relisting admin's noted when they relisted that they were doing so because of "lack of keep rationale". Speaks for itself. I trust the closing admin will look at the quality of the arguments. TarnishedPathtalk 09:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis of WP:SYNTH. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2024 (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.

Proposed deletions

An automatically generated list of proposed deletions and other psychology-related article alerts can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Article alerts

No articles proposed for deletion at this time.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Psychology&oldid=1222137593"