Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mental Space Psychology

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Space Psychology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:FRINGE. This is essentially the pet project of one person, with about zero publications from uninvolved authors. Therefore it fails GNG. Lithopsian (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search confirms the nominator's thesis that this is the author's use of Wikipedia to advance original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a detailed article with many references, including references by famous psychologists, such as Amos Tversky. Vorbee (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article lists papers by famous psychologists, but do any of them actually cover this subject? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tons of references do not necessarily WP:RS make, and this is one such example. The vast majority of the references are to other subjects or disciplines, such as neuro-linguistic programming (fringe-y enough itself). Extending these references to support the topic here is WP:OR at its most unadulterated especially given the lack of inline references. This is essentially the original author's personal essay and, if they wish to publish such, can do so elsewhere. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COPYVIO, WP:GNG, WP:COI, WP:FRINGE, etc, etc. Almost every phrase I google gets a hit for something written in a book written by someone else. The article's creator is a prominent member of the Society for Mental Space Psychology (see http://www.somsp.com/about).-Location (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any single source we can say that this was significantly plagiarised from? If so it can be speedily deleted without the need for further discussion. OTOH, if it was cobbled together from multiple sources without any one source being plagiarised enough to be a fatal copyvio then I guess we need to continue. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single source. I looked, and already deleted several sections from different papers. I would have speedy-deleted it if there had been a more obvious source for the whole thing. Some sections may even be sufficiently paraphrased to survive. Then I gave up and decided it should be deleted anyway. Lithopsian (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That was my experience, too. -Location (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If copyvio: Speedy delete.
If not copyvio: Delete anyway. The subject title gets a whopping 4 hits in Google Scholar, which make me think that it is not a true scientific discipline at all, at least not under this name. The article itself is almost unreadable gibberish (I don't think that wikification would help much) and gives the impression of possibly having been pasted from somewhere else, although it is also perfectly possible that it is an original essay. Either way that is no good to us. This is pure supposition but I can't help wondering if this was written for submission to a journal (hence the ludicrous number of supposed references) and then pasted here after it got rejected for obvious reasons. The other possibility is that it is a joke. When I google for a nonsense phrase like "social sidecar personality" I get nothing but the fact that this has been previously deleted from Wikipedia. Maybe somebody is yanking our chain here? Anyway, it makes no difference. Either way it has to go. Maybe salt it as it has been previously deleted. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Also, give the Kitchen Sink Award to the references section. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.