Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robopsychology

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 keep. Consensus is to Keep this article given the new sources described in this discussion and recent additions to the article. But it is recommended for editors to remove any OR that exists in a general article clean-up after this AFD closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robopsychology[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There isn't WP:SIGCOV for this topic and this fails the WP:GNG. Most of this article is WP:OR trying to connect disparate concepts that haven't been covered in reliable third party sources. Jontesta (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Technology. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep existing refs 2 and 4 appear independent RS coverage--that is, I've not even run a search for more yet. This somewhat brief article doesn't appear particularly more confused than any other when a science fiction concept is eventually instantiated in the real world. Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are several not-so-short secondary sources already in the article. I am asking the nominator to give the reasoning why those and other hits appearing in a search should not constitute WP:SIGCOV? Until that is clarified, my opinion is keep as there are sources. Most sources I have seen talk mainly about the real-world use of the concept. However, both this paper and the Computerworld article link that to the term coined by Asimov, so that connection is not original research but is indeed covered by third party sources. Daranios (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I found one more significant source: Krägeloh, C.U. et al. (2022) ‘The time is ripe for robopsychology’, Frontiers in psychology, 13, p. 968382. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.968382. What is tricky here is that there are sources that seem to cover this same material but don't use this exact term. That argues against this article, or at least this article's title, which may be too narrow. I still say keep because this is a very new usage and perhaps it will become more widely used. If not I assume we'll be back to discussing this. Lamona (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I can see it being a developed article, but right now it is pure WP:SYNTH and original research. I recommend putting it through the article creation process to confirm that it can be a viable article, otherwise, it should be removed per WP:TNT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I updated the article using this recent academic source found by Lamona. It's entirely dedicated to the concept of robopsychology, although it also documents the current lack of a sub-discipline in psychology with that name. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great find, and another source that states that at least its use and sources referring to Asimov are indeed linked, rather than a case of "trying to connect disparate concepts". Daranios (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm convinced by the arguments above, not least since Gitz has added to the article since the start of this AfD conversation. /Julle (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources in evidence.4meter4 (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2022 (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.