Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psiology
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 Redirect to Parapsychology. Consensus has been reached in favour of the fact that "Psiology" is an alternative term for "Parapsychology"; a mirror article would be a waste of time and resources. Anthøny 17:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Psiology
WP:Neologism (and a failed one at that) Verdatum (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- comment It's not unlikely that someone may search for this term expecting to be taken to parapsychology material (I suppose if this article were deleted they would hit upon Displacement (psiology, parapsychology, psychical science) which is an article in a pretty poor state). It is a neologism, Googling turns up references to the book title more than anything else. The article has the flavour of a WP:COATRACK for a biography of Carroll Blue Nash. I'm not going to !vote delete because "Psi" is widely used to refer to parapsychology*, and so Psiology isn't an unreasonable search term, and this article doesn't seem to misrepresent the terms actual status and is arguably of greater encyclopedic value than a straight redirect to Parapsychology. *Note sources such as The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology entry for "Psi" reads in part "When spelled out in English, it refers to the parapsychologists psi-process". Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reasonable points, but then should not the article be moved to a subsection of Parapsychology? I fail to see how it is worthy of it's own article. -Verdatum (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. A redirect isn't the perfect solution (as I argue above), and moving this to a section within Parapsychology does kind of imply turning this into a redirect... Now that I think about it a bit, I think the best thing would be to 1) move this article into a section of Parapsychology, say [[Parapsychology#Psiology]], then 2) turn this into a redirect to that section #REDIRECT[[Parapsychology#Psiology]]. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reasonable points, but then should not the article be moved to a subsection of Parapsychology? I fail to see how it is worthy of it's own article. -Verdatum (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- merge/redirect reasoning above. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree (and figured this out shortly after replying). Though I'm not sure how this is tipically taken care of (switching to a proposal for merge/redirect). Verdatum (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I can't find the policy that I'm looking for, but I seem to recall that you can withdraw the nomination to delete, (the AfD will then close as a keep, not sure if you are allowed to do the close yourself, or if an admin is required, that's what I can't find). The merge and redirect can be done in normal any old user manner. It would just be bad form to do it with the AfD open. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree (and figured this out shortly after replying). Though I'm not sure how this is tipically taken care of (switching to a proposal for merge/redirect). Verdatum (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect into Parapsychology or, better, make it part of a bio of Carroll Blue Nash, assuming he is sufficiently notable. It now almost reads like a dictionary entry for a failed neologism, which is worse than a dictionary entry for a successful one. Tim Ross·talk 20:07, 21 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.
