Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychic seduction

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. There may be some merit in the suggestion that underneath the flim-flam lies the nub of a notable subject, but this article will not be of any obvious help in compiling that. Opinion here is pretty clear: the article as written is advancing an agenda and fails to credibly establish the encyclopaedic merit of this term as described. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychic seduction

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

Unencyclopedic topic (edit), meaning that it fails WP:Verifiability and WP:NOT#OR (end edit); no verifiable references, attracts spamming. Seems to be a made-up concept. Joie de Vivre 14:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm highly dubious about this article. Nothing on Scholar, and the rest of Google shows a whole lot of spamvertising for dodgy books published by equally dodgy publishers. There doesn't appear to be much out there that could actually be used as a reliable source (certainly there are no sources now). I could be wrong, but until proven otherwise delete as unverifiable/unverified. Apart from which, a term made up only in 1999 does not exactly have a natural hold on notability. Moreschi Talk 15:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Umm... yeah... don't really know what to say about that... title really says it all. cornis 15:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, very weakly, and without prejudice to re-creation. Not sure what "reliable sources" means when it comes to magical subjects; for our purposes I think we'd have to call a source reliable if it reliably reports what magical practitioners believe and do. A worthwhile article might be written on the subject - there's an anecdote told in The Confessions of Aleister Crowley that comes to mind, though it's been aeons since I've read that - and as such any deletion should be without prejudice to writing a better one. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
This term doesn't refer to traditional love potions etc and is utterly separate from Asian concepts such as talisman or wider spread fertility beliefs. - perfectblue 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as lacking reliable sources to show there is such a magic phenomenon. That said, the articles on Flirting and Seduction do not adequately address the importance of having confidence or a positive mental attitude, which this term also addresses on some websites, such as "Psychic Seduction Tips" By Jay Ashley at EzineArticles.com , which is for some reason blacklisted by Wikipedia. Edison 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • See, this is the thing: apparently this is not a paranormal concept. There are a few people out there (see Google) marketing this as though you can use this as a genuine technique to persuade members of the gentler sex to divest themselves of their underclothing and hop into bed with you. The problem is that their dubious marketing does not confer encyclopedic notability. Some sort of scholarly, published research would, but there doesn't seem to be any of that. Moreschi Talk 18:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Scholarly research in this field does exist, but it doesn't use this term. The term is pure pop culture. - perfectblue 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Magic for sexual or romantic purposes has been a prime use of purported magical techniques, documented for literally millenia. We dont seem to have an article, and probably we should, but , this wouldn't be the title, and there is nothing here which would contribute to a possible article, as there are no sources whatsoever. DGG 22:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: And how... is this topic scientific? Joie de Vivre
Psychology is a science, isn't it? - perfectblue 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, psychology is a science. This is not science. Joie de Vivre 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you get a psychic STD from this kind of thing? ~ Infrangible 01:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but you can clear it up with antipsychotics. Joie de Vivre 02:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but it's very hard to clear up some, like herpes cortex. So don't forget to wear a proper condom. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 06:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is a real and current pop culture concept tagging along on the coattails of interest in ESP, "think yourself to a better lifestyle" teachings, and new age philosophies (even though it goes against the ideology of the latter). As a subculture element, it's lack of support by the mainstream, and lack of coverage by the mainstream, is 100% irrelevant. - perfectblue 07:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Unencyclopedic topic", it is a verifiable term that has a history and a presence in popular culture/subculture. By definition this makes it viable topic for an encyclopedia entry. "no verifiable references". Not so. For example Sexual Psychic Seduction;; ISBN 0976386224. "attracts spamming", So does George W. Bush and various pages on sexual techniques, but those pages is still here. "Seems to be a made-up concept" It was made up by a third party, which is what counts. - perfectblue 07:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • How does a few people mentioning this term in their self-published books constitute encyclopedic notability? It may well be a real term used by a couple of people. I just don't think it's notable on an encyclopedic level. Wiktionary may want it as a (dubious) dicdef, but I don't think we do. Moreschi Talk 10:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • To be fair, "no verifiable references" does not mean that none exist, it means that none were provided in the article. Normally I would try to improve it myself before nominating, but I wasn't about to wade through more websites that try to launch malicious software (see Talk:Psychic seduction) in order to find references. Joie de Vivre 11:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
A few people mentioning something in a few books is sufficient to WP:V a term as being real, the number of people talking about it on message boards and at self help seminars is enough to make it notable. I should mention that "Unencyclopedic" and WP:Notability are different concepts. Unencyclopedic means that the basic topic is unsuitable for inclusion because it has no encyclopedic merit, while notability means that something is not important enough for inclusion. For example, a page discussing a magazine that has yet to be published but is donating all of its profits to a worthy cause would be notable but unencyclopedic (Wikipedia does not base entries on forecasts of the future), whereas a published magazine with only 100 subscribers would be encyclopedic but not notable - perfectblue 13:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, no. Notability is not determind by jabber on messsage boards. Notability is determined by this: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Moreschi Talk 13:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Um. yes. You can take your quote over to any article about science, society or history and it will stand up to scrutiny, but it doesn't wash with popular culture. Like it or not, popular culture exists independently of the mainstream media, of logic, and of science. A pop culture phenomona can sweep through a generation and hardly even be recorded in mainstream sources. In order to judge it's popularity or notability you need to look at its base and its roots.
For example, you can have a music genre that is taking every top club in the country by storm, yet isn't even mentioned in the mainstream music press. perfectblue 14:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, definitely no. At least, that's not what the rules for notability say. If you wish to change them, good luck. Moreschi Talk 14:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
In its current state, this article fails to assert the subject's notability, so it may be deleted. Joie de Vivre 13:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall disagreeing with that. What it do disagree with is that the topic is unencyclopedic and that it can't be verified. - perfectblue 14:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the reason I gave may have been unclear to some readers. See slight clarification in nomination. Joie de Vivre 14:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, my brainwaves are signaling to do so. RFerreira 06:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge content The article and the subject have been confused here. The subject is almost certainly notable, though better known as "love magic", for which there's at least a 2 millennium documented history going back to Roman era magic charms--there is a WP article as Binding spell which could be renamed and expanded. There's an immense amount from other cultures, & some might be hidden somewhere in WP as well. I could do the rename and start the expand. Modern content can then be added; there isn't actually any content in the present article to merge--there is considerably. more in this discussion, but calling it a merge sounds right. DGG 03:34, 14 June 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.