Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polycrates complex

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. Daniel (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Polycrates complex

[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)

This is not a notable concept; it's barely even a verifiable concept. This is a peripheral, almost passing idea from one psychoanalytic book from 1945, and its existence elsewhere is passing mentions in some following literature (direct quote: "[the term] Polycrates complex hardly deserves a column") and people directly ripping Wikipedia articles (e.g. mirrors and those interminable pronunciation videos). Prodded and deprodded, with little in the way of rationale for the latter. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge It has an entry by this title in the Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis (1968). The worst case would be merger to some similar concept such as Jonah complex. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The most passing familiarity with psychology belies that those aren't coherent concepts to merge. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One guy's coinage, mentioned passingly in the decades since and, as the nominator noted, sometimes with derision then. (The "hardly deserves a column" dig is actually from a review of the Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis mentioned in the previous !vote [1].) The claim about its use in criminology has been unsourced since the article was created in 2005.) XOR'easter (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge somewhere. This is a definition of a term that has been used. We have got one reference (from 1945). It may belong to an aspect of psychology that is no longer in vogue, which is probably why there is nothing more recent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a definition, and that's all it is, per WP:NOTDICT. We can verify that it was an idea someone had once; there's no evidence anyone much cared. There are plenty of notable concepts from early psychology, including routes people don't really go down anymore, but this isn't one of them. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds about right. The number of terms coined by academics every year is large, while the fraction of them that gain any nontrivial traction is small. XOR'easter (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A valid target for a merger has not really emerged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and XOR'easter. Not a notable concept. Lennart97 (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with XOR'easter, non-notable concept, no sources showing notability for GNG. Nothing shows up in a journal search. Merging would require properly sourced content, and the source does not support the text. I couldn't find any appropriate redirect target, but if someone finds one and it make sense the closer should consider it. But unsourced content should not be merged into other articles. // Timothy :: talk 10:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. It's sourced to a single primary source, and thus is original research. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2021 (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.