Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychedelics in problem-solving experiment

Psychedelics in problem-solving experiment

[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)

A single science experiment with no reliable medical sources. It was initially redirected by Alexbrn (talk · contribs) in October 2017 after sequentially removing massive amounts of WP:COATRACK and non-RS, but was unilaterally restored in December by Ianneman (talk · contribs) on invalid grounds that "[i]n the current climate of research, fully sourced discussion on this subject is impossible". Alexbrn recently did another trim and then PRODded the article, but was deprodded by Custoo (talk · contribs) without explanation. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LaundryPizza03 I'm suprised to read that you concider that I didn't explain why I deprodded. I did explain it in the talk page before doing it as instructed. As you can see in the talk page the explanation is too long for edit summary. Perhaps you didn't see my explanation in the talk page?--Custoo (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Custoo: I'm sorry about not reading it first. It wasn't very clear, however. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not-notable research experiment. The one notionally viable source (Doody) does not even mention this particular piece of research. If anything emerges per WP:NOPAGE it would in any case be better mentioned at James Fadiman where it would make better sense. Alexbrn (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: I just published a revision on the article trying to demonstrate that it can be improved. I think it can be improved even more but I could only do so much with given time since 1) it's five days to christmas so I didn't acutely have more time to work on this 2) AfD process states that articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days so I might expect someone to make the decission as soon as tomorrow 3) I don't want to spend time working on this before I know it won't be deleted and I have the necessary time to work on it without unnecessary pressure from AfD process. Currently the article reads much like two other articles Concord Prison Experiment and Marsh Chapel Experiment. These articles build upon initial experiments done in the 1960s and continue with contemporary follow-ups.

The above argument by Alexbrn that the only viable source doesn't even mention this research doesn't hold true anymore as I have provided three more contemporary sources that cite the original research. This also brings into doubt the argument that this research is not notable. It seems notable enough for the contemporary researchers so that they cite and revisit it even 40 years afterwards.

I don't also think merging the current content to James Fadiman would make much sense as the scope of the article is no longer constricted to Fadimans work and also the first author was Willis Harman. If justification of standalone article is still disputed I could offer few other solutions.

The article could be reframed not to build upon the initial experiment but to be about studies of psychedelics effect on creativity and cognition in general. I guess it might then resemble the article Psychedelic therapy which sums up the research on therapeutic potential of psychedelics even though the clinical experiments are not still finished so that that the therapeutic use could be evaluated or aproved. I doubt though there will be as much contemporary material to add in future as there is for the topic of psychedelic therapy. I'm not sure this would be my favourite solution and that is based only in not having clear vision on how to rewrite the article.

Another solution could be to start a whole new article titled Psychedelic drug research. There would also be a root category ready to go with it. That article could bring together all the different research paths. To name few there could be 1) Effect on creativity and cognition, 2) psychedelic induced mystical experiences (Marsh Chapel Experiment and follow-ups), 3) effect on prisoners recidivism (Concord Prison Experiment and follow-ups), 4) brain imaging studies, 5) research on the quality of subjective altered states of concsiousness studied with altered states of concsiousness questionaire (5D-ASC), 6) microdosing studies 7) therapeutic studies already have article about them but it could be mentioned and then redirect there 8) pharmacology. This might reduse the tendency for standalone articles of experimental and novel topics on psychedelic research in the future as they could be included in the main article. This might make a pretty long article in the long run but then again any single topic could split into it's own article if necessary.

My first choice for now would still be to keep things as they are and start imporving this article as it is (in January after the holidays).--Custoo (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]