Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orgonophilia

From 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. Davewild (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orgonophilia

Orgonophilia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Prod tag removed, so here we are: Zero google hits, and highly suspect claims in text--hoax, WP:OR, and/or neologism Ravenna1961 04:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As the socks have pointed out, the Google test is not infallible, especially with obscure medical terms. However, if Richard Burton was indeed publicly known to have a fascination with filing cabinets, I'm quite certain Google would have some knowledge of that, but none can be found. Ravenna1961 01:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per nom. Probably a hoax with Zero G-Hits. - Rjd0060 04:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete clear hoax. JJL 05:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep No evidence offered that this is a hoax. Article is well written and supported by published sources. Quick Google search reveals lists of many unusual personality disorders, many of which are far more improbable sounding than Orgonophilia and have no internet presence other than in aformentioned lists.Johnson Archbold 13:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Johnson Archbold (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep The point made above by Johnson Archbold is born out. See link: http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/philias.html. There is much recorded knowledge that has yet to be recorded on-line. Google hits are an inadequate yard-stick. Evelyn Jones 18:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Evelyn Jones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment I am unable to find Orgonophilia there. In addition, I checked the Stanislavski reference using "Search Inside This Book" at Amazon.com [1]. I was unable to find the terms "filing", "cabinet", "Richard", or "Burton" (but could find a number of other terms, like "Shakespeare" and "Grisha", so the search appears to be working properly). I would also like to see the source for this checked: "Field Marshall Alan Brooke, who was Chief of the Imperial General Staff during the Second World War, was a notable orgonophiliac. During his time as Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Brooke had frequent rows with Winston Churchill over strategy that would trigger an orgonophilic episode. In order to recover, Brooke took to sharing his bed with a three-draw, oak Globe Wernicke filing cabinet. When Brook accompanied Churchill abroad, it was impossible for him to take his beloved Globe Wernicke with him. However, he was able to find succour when asleep with a single-draw card index system." I say again Speedy delete as clear (and ongoing) hoax. JJL 20:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I would like to say Delete, not least because having read the author's own sanctimonious comments on the discussion page he sounds like a windbag who doesn’t really get Wikipedia. However, the reference to the book Psychology by Martin, Carlson & Buskist checks out. Also, the points raised above about internet navel-gazing are valid. Many web references quoted on Wikipedia articles are either unreliable or no longer accessible.The Cropter 1661 20:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Croppter 1661 (talk • contribs) — The Croppter 1661 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete as questionably sourced at best. One would think that such a condition, especially when experienced by such luminaries as Richard Burton, would have some online documentation somewhere. This looks like bollocks to me. (I'd suggest that we look very carefully at this edit by Evelyn Jones (talk · contribs), as well; that didn't turn up Googling either.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wrote the article so I appreciate that I am not impartial. However, I would like to say that the "discussion" here is ludicrous. It consists entirely of conjecture, innuendo and suspicion. Only two contributors have even bothered to investigate the source material, and only person has actually read one of the books referred to in the article. Do any of you understand the concept of evidence? Furthermore, not one of you would appear to have any clinical knowledge of psychology or psychiatry. Do any of you know the meaning of the term “peer review”? What is the point of this encylopedia if the only measure of it's veracity is how many articles are thrown up by Google? Celron Donate 22:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Celeron Donate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete per WP:HOAX, WP:SOCK and indeed WP:BEANS. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 22:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • keep - article was quite obviously written by Rowan Atkinson and I claim my $5. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sheffield Steel. Cobbled together from other Wikipedia articles, BTW, for example the "Association with panic attacks" section comes from the Agoraphobia article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Cobbled together might give the wrong impression. I was impressed by the style, invention and attention to detail. Still a delete, of course. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Congratulations on a hoax that was better-planned than the usual hoax. It is nicely written. It sounds as if it might be true. There really is a book by Martin, Carlson and Buskist, all real people, about psychology, so there's the illusion of a "reliable source". Add to that a helping hand from "The Cropter" who is there to assure us that it "checks out". The only thing that you couldn't resolve was the lack of any mention of this condition anywhere outside of your article. When the story started falling apart, the answer was that google isn't 100% reliable, your critics don't understand evidence or psychology, etc. At least you were successful in causing all of us to spend some time trying to verify something that sounded as if it might be true. "And I woulda gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!" Too bad we can't pull of the mask to see who you really are. Mandsford 03:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Look at it this way--it shows the ability to write real articles, if you care to try that instead.DGG (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you entirely. My thoughts have been that it's a lot of talent wasted on a practical joke. Note to author-- use your powers for good, not for evil Mandsford 21:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This has to be a hoax. It is, however, one of the more creative and amusing hoaxes I've seen on Wikipedia, so it gets credit for that at least. Terraxos (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
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.