Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychohistory

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 wasClose as no consensus towards deletion which defaults to keep. I strongly agree that this is a content dispute that needs to be moved to Talk:Psychohistory and related forums and WikiProjects. Keeper | 76 19:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Psychohistory

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

Delete article that even after all this time has failed to psychohistory is a legitimate field. Yes, there are plenty of references for the historical things discussed within the topic but not for the topic itself. After all this time, somebody should have been able to show that the term itself wasn't made up by the article's original author. When I find the word through google, the sources either refer to Asimov's fictional term which is already covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, or they vary so vastly in their uses of the term that this cannot possibly be a specific field. Where it might seem to be legitimate, a mention of it might be appropriately incorporated into the article on the better known Asimov term. Otherwise, the content of this article is not actually about any field of psychohistory itself. Wryspy (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be a legitimate field to have a Wikipedia article!P4k (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Asimov's psychohistory (fictional) is rarely, if ever, mentioned in academic circles. On the other hand, psychohistory is a controversial, but established field of inquiry on child abuse in different cultures. Even non-psychohistorian academics recognize, and acknowledge in scholarly literature, the existence of this field. —Cesar Tort 23:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Belete. This topic is simply not notable enough to have an article. It is by definition a fringe view that dismisses an entire academic discipline. There are a few references to it in a handful of journals but in those articles it is using 'psychohistory' in a completely different way and to communicate a completely different concept. It could perhaps be re-written at a later date but for now it should probably go.--Woland (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment "There are a few references to it in a handful of journals but in those articles it is using 'psychohistory' in a completely different way and to communicate a completely different concept." You are wrong there, Woland. When an academic source talks about psychohistory it invariably refers to subjects related to what is being discussed in the article. There is no wide use of the term aside the deMause school (and a bit of Freud) and Asimov's sci-fi novels (the latter obviously have an independent article). —Cesar Tort 23:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Has its own LC subject heading [1] with over 100 books categorized at the Library of congress, and in addition multiple bibliographies, periodicals, and congresses. Clearly notable. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep As Silly rabbit says, the Library of Congress lists many reliable sources about htis subject, including a journal, LC Control No.: 76646742, Type of Material: Serial (Periodical, Newspaper, etc.), Main Title: The Psychohistory review. Edison (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Several academic journals devoted entirely on the subject. dozens of faculty at major universities listed at [2] who Branconsider this their specialty. Obviously, someone here doesnt think much of this field of research, but thats not reason to delete the article on it--or perhaps it's just based on a knowledge of Asimov's fiction & assuming anything else is a misuse of the term. DGG (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has problems, but it's a real topic. Heck, the Journal of Psychohistory even has its own Wikipedia article. Doczilla (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with DGG, Edison, and Silly Rabbit. But the article that Wikipedia has is not that article on that topic and as long as it is here, it is an embarassment to the encyclopedia. I find it hard to vote "delete" because we ought to have an article pon psychohistory - the psychohistory DGG, Edison, and Silly Rabbit refer to. But I find it hard to vote "keep" because this AfD is not referring to that (as yet hypothetical) article but a changeling that is unencyclopedically pushing a fringe POV. If DGG, Edison, and Silly Rabbit want to blnk the page and start writing the article they are imagining, I would definitely be for keeping it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Precisely what I was trying to say but said much gooder.--Woland (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "the article that Wikipedia has is not that article on that topic". What are you talking about? As stated above, what is widely regarded as psychohistory is (1) Asimov's Foundation series or (2) the field related to deMause's school. It's true that once in a while it appears a mention of some of Freud's work as "psychohistory". But it's the exception rather than the rule. —Cesar Tort 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, if you go to the Journal of Psychohistory, you will see that it is not built aournd DeMause's school. DeMause is mentioned in about 6% of the google hits for psychohistory. Only 6%. As a matter of fact, if you feel it's that closely connected to DeMause, this should be turned into a redirect to DeMause's article with appropriate content merge.Wryspy (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Slrubenstein's assessment that the article appears to document somewhat of a fringe view. Not being a social scientist myself, I would even go so far as to say that psychohistory per se appears to be a pseudoscientific endeavor — and that I am certainly not qualified to address which topics are "mainstream" within its particular sphere of applicability. However, this certainly does not disqualify the article for inclusion in Wikipedia. (See, for instance, Flat earth theory.) Since this appears to be a content dispute, I suggest that the issue be raised not at AfD, where the threshhold has clearly been passed (notability), but at the article talk page, RfC, or other more appropriate forum. Silly rabbit (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• What are you talking about, Wryspy?? DeMause has been the editor of that journal for more than thirty years! (I subscribe that journal BTW). —Cesar Tort 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We very obviously seem to be in a content dispute. I suggest a rapid close.DGG (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2008 (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.