Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychogenetics

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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychogenetics

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

mostly OR babble, merge any material supported by RS to Behavioural genetics, else redirect there per Wim Crusio's comment on Talk:Psychogenetics Pete.Hurd 18:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychogenes Pete.Hurd 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR Alf^Photoman 19:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Unint 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Very, very weak keep - I cannot make head or tail of what the article says, but it looks like a cut-and-paste from another source. Only the detailed references make it look worth keeping. Really, someone with subject matter knowledge needs to review the article. Also, it desperately needs a clean-up and some high-level contents that a layman can understand. HagenUK 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  I think the reason you can't make head or tail of the article is that it's WP:Complete bollocks. I'd be intrigued if you turn up a WP:Reliable source in the references to support the central claim that “psycho-genes” contain Subliminal Nuance Data and Conscious Nuance Data―SND and CND. in the same way that our genome is composed of RNA and DNA. Pete.Hurd 00:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  Well, I did a quick Google search and the references stacked up in Google Scholar. However, the authors don't all match, which is a bit suspicious. Anyway, the content still does not make any sense to me. I'll stick to my Very, very weak keep but I would support a Delete decision as well. Psychogenetics seem to be a bit of quack psychology, but that does not exclude it from Wikipedia as long as there is a strong Critism section in there. My main bug bear with this article is that it is basically unreadable. HagenUK 19:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this article and its companion are 100% grade-A nonsense. Opabinia regalis 04:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- as further proven by the list of references, where the author apparently gathered in any that made use of similar words in the title. Fortunately there is no evidence for popular notice to complicate things. DGG 06:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As suggested on the talk page, the term does appear in a number of psychology papers from the 1960s/70s, but nothing since. The only modern-day reference I could find was to a department at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, which, taken in context, clearly has nothing to do with the ideas presented here. –Unint 16:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes , the possibility of using this term clearly occurred to a number of people, but it did not become established as a discipline under that name.DGG 23:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I have little doubt that this is an actual field of study, quackery aside. If nothing reliable can be found, it should be turned into a stub. This is an editing problem, not a deletion. --Mus Musculus 02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Rewrite. Quackery. But notable quackery. NPOV rewrite should occur.--ZayZayEM 03:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with Mus Musculus.--DorisH 13:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If the term is actually used redirect to Racial memory (if this survives AfD). Pavel Vozenilek 01:00, 17 March 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.