Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychonaut (2nd nomination)

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. with thanks to FT2 for rescuing it. JohnCD (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psychonaut

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

Unsourced, full of issues. If this topic is worthy of an article at all, it will have to be written from the ground up anyway, so this might as well be deleted. A cursory Google glance and a look at the single external link makes me think that it's a worthless neologism. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is painfully bad, and it's understandable why someone would want to shoot it in back of the barn to put it out of its misery. However, current condition is not a criterion for deletion. A Google book search suggests that finding some sources won't be terribly difficult (although actually rewriting the article may well be). The five seconds I spent on that search simply reinforce what was found at the last AfD, which is that the article has potential and should not be deleted.--~T P W 05:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The essay that you link to, WP:DEADLINE, cuts both ways. We are not on a deadline to include articles in Wikipedia, either, and those which violate policy (and continue to do so after 5-7 days) can and should be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've linked to an additional essay in my original comments that is more relevant. I also interpret the deadline essay differently - don't rush to create an article if you don't have sources, but don't rush to delete it just because you don't have the time to source it yourself, either.--~T P W 14:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if kept rename as the dab page should be at the primary name. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete (conditional)~~ Revert to stub - As TPW says, there appear to be good sources available for this article. That same fact was noted in the first AfD and led to that 'keep' decision. In the intervening 22 months not one reference was added. I have left warnings on the talk page and tagged the H out of the article. It's likely that those working on this article have "other things" on their minds besides the status of this article and we should give up on its improvement. If no one responds to this AfD with some proper refs in the next few days, I vote we ~~Delete~~ cut it off just above the ground. Joja lozzo 06:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm concerned about the issues raised by Joja above, but the topic is notable, and I don't know that the article needs to be rewritten wholesale so much as it is in desperate need of sourcing. It's not an out and out disaster, it's just disastrously unsourced :). I'll say this: hesitated a bit before going the weak keep route. I just generally dislike deleting articles on notable topics just because the article itself is flawed. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If good sources are in fact available, and if this can be adequately rescued in time, I will reconsider. In its current state it violates FAR too many policies to remain. JBsupreme (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...such as? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The subject of the article is a real, meaningful, and notable concept. The relative quality of the article is a separate issue. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as in moment it violates WP:V. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: For those of us who value the topic's notability, is Revert to stub an option? Joja lozzo 14:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to stub an article myself, so sure. Might make it more likely that this article will grow into something useful. You may find some opposition from editors who feel that a stub will be more prone to deletion if the present lack of improvement continues, but I would think that pointing to the previous AfD should be sufficient to demonstrate the article's potential. --~T P W 17:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to starting over, but I'm not sure I would be comfortable with stubbing as the outcome of an AFD. If it's all the same to you, and tell me if it's not, I'd rather keep and then stub. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hopeless WP:OR with zero references, better restart from scratch. Based on this reliable source, I have doubts the article can be anything more than a WP:DICTDEF peppered with original research. Pcap ping 23:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But blast back to stub and start over with care.TheRingess (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but current version needs stubbing and restarting. The concept itself seems both notable and encyclopedic, it's the flimsy and unsourced article on it that's at fault. Note this historic version (last time I edited it) appears to show a number of more useful resources and links; I haven't evaluated them in depth but they may provide a slightly better starting point for a restart. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of usage on Google Scholar:

Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, Volume 30, Issue 4, June 2006 "Drugs on the web; the Psychonaut 2002 EU project" [1]
International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 18, Issue 3 "A Psychonaut's Guide to the Invisible Landscape: The Topography of the Psychedelic Experience", Carpenter, [2]
Addiction Research & Theory 2008, Vol. 16, No. 3 "Ketamine Case Study: The Phenomenology of a Ketamine Experience" Psychonautics refers both to a methodology for describing and explaining the subjective effects of drugs, and to a long established research paradigm in which intellectuals have taken drugs to explore human experience and existence... This article reports a case study... based on a retrospective written self-report by the psychonaut... [3]
Ralph Flores, 2008 "Buddhist scriptures as literature: sacred rhetoric and the uses of theory", A comparable claim would be made years later by Robert Thurman, in the introduction to his translation: ... Tibetan lamas could be called psychonauts, since they journey across the frontiers of death into the in-between realm [4]
Technoetic Arts: a Journal of Speculative Research "The shaman reborn in cyberspace, or evolving magico-spiritual techniques of consciousness-making" They are 'probes' sent out into the real world to represent and align with the inner world of the ancient shaman and modern psychonaut [5]
Clinical Toxicology, Vol. 45, no. 4, 2007 "New Drugs of Abuse", van Riel, ...In recent years it is used mainly by psychonauts (relatively small group of drug users who like to experiment with hallucinogenic drugs in order to gain deeper insights and spiritual experiences)... [6]
"Guided imagery: creative interventions in counselling & psychotherapy" Hall, Hall & Stradling O'Connell and O'Connell (1974) coined the term psychonauts... [7]
"Qat-induced Hallucination Quadrantanopsia and Hallucinations", Blom, A person intentionally employing qat for the purpose of exploring the psyche may be called a psychonaut... [8]
CyberPsychology & Behavior. August 2003, 6(4) "Importance of Cyberspace for the Assessment of the Drug Abuse Market: Preliminary Results from the Psychonaut 2002 Project" [9]

As well as widespread non-scholarly references. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing anything in those refs that could be used to expand the article beyond the dictdef I already found above. Pcap ping 08:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is. A dicdef means there is little to say beyond typical dictionary information - (definitions, origins, history of usage, examples of usage). In this case we have enough to cover an entire philosophy section covering views on the use of substances for exploration of the psyche, a history section of this kind of usage from religion through into contemporary culture, and across a range of specific cultures from Tibet to Shamanism to the hippie era (which is different from the history of the word), the actual and discussed use of the topic as a route in therapy (main article: Psychedelic therapy), psychological aspects of such usage, current views from various fields such as therapy through to drug abuse analysis, descriptions of the subjective experience it labels (as discussed in scholarly writings), and a list of some notable individuals such as Aldous Huxley who are widely considered to have used substances for exploration of their psyche according to authoritative reliable sources. Plenty to sustain more than a dicdef. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. It is to be expected that the article is imperfect as most of our articles are poor. Our editing policy is to keep them in mainspace for further improvement. Discussion of these putative improvements belongs on the article's talk page, not here. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What Colonel Warden said. K2709 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a real thing, as seen by a Google news search. There enough mention of people who are called psychonauts in the news, to warrant an article explaining what it is. Dream Focus 19:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The article has serious problems, but it's a notable subject and I believe strongly that the article has the potential to become decent. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbify. The article is abominable, an example of everything we don't want. I'm convinced that there could be a good article with this name, but that article will share nothing with present one. Ozob (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Try this as a starting point - User:FT2/Psychonautics FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated (ie rewritten) article per many comments above. On review didn't seem to be much point not doing so. It's still incomplete and lacks topic coverage, but within its limits its a viable stub, contains reliable sourced information, and is reasonably sourced and balanced. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With FT2's recent inspired work I think we can close this discussion. Changing the subject to the methodology rather than the practitioners gives the piece a straight forward, clear, encyclopedic tone. Joja lozzo 04:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was abominable and I am not interested in the subject. However, both these matters are beside the point. The rewritten article is fine for letting people know what the subject is about and so it now improves the encyclopedia. Even the references are satisfactory. Thincat (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the improvements. Sud Ram (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs more improvement of course. I hope I can make a few good contribs here... Denial (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2010 (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.