Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patapsychology

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. PhilKnight (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patapsychology[edit]

Does not seem notable. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is not an article on a topic within the realm of Philosophy, it's on an element of fiction that fails WP:FICT. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Pete.Hurd says it best.Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The term has some currency and the article should be retained as a unique search term, at least. Merger to another article such as Committee for Surrealist Investigation of Claims of the Normal might be best. Note, btw, that WP:FICT has no standing, just being a failed bit of bureaucracy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The term has some currency" do you have some WP:RS sources to back this up? I notice that the article doesn't. My Googling turns up primarily wikipedia mirrors, and a smattering of Robert Anton Wilson's sites (e.g. www.rawilson.com & www.maybelogic.org). Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word is used in several books and so shows up in Google Scholar. It is therefore a plausible search term and we should help our readers to a suitable destination here. We are here to inform, not to engage in political battles and censorship. Colonel Warden (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word used in three books, according to GS, only one of which has been cited, and that was only once. Sub-trivial. Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a non-notable neologism that has only appeared in a couple of books so far. --Itub (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found a suitable article into which we should merge this: Pataphysics. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strongly opposed to merge to Pataphysics, far more appropriate merge candidate (and I still don't think it's a good idea) is Robert Anton Wilson's bio. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge to somewhere appropriate - you're probably right, I was being a little over-enthusiastic in creating this article, although my position as the originator should not carry any more weight than any other opinion. It will never be more than a stub, which is a good indication that it should, at the most generous, be merged somewhere. — PhilHibbs | talk 09:47, 5 August 2008 (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.