Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychopsema

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. postdlf (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psychopsema

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

Contested PROD. This is a completely unsourced neologism. The term was coined only last month, but the book cited as a reference was published in 1994, and none of the external links provided mentions it. A search finds a number of uses in the internet, all in identical words e.g. here, attributed to "Angela-May Worthington, Senior Staff writer, SSEC" (the organization where the term was originated), and all dated 5 March, the same date this article was input, and almost certainly the same source. If speedy-deleted as a copyright violation, it is likely that a copyright release would be made, so it seems to me better to bring it straight here.

The undeletion request suggested that the term should actually be "Phychopsema" and there are references to that, e.g. here, also attributed to SSEC. It appears that even the spelling of the word is not yet settled.

Per WP:NEO: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term...To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term... Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia."

This is not yet even in wide use. It is not Wikipedia's job to help a campaign to establish it. JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the reference clearly has nothing to do with the neologism itself. Maybe at some point in the future, this will be ready for Wikipedia, but as of now clearly fails WP:NEO. Kansan (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide extensive coverage of the term. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NEO, etc. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - for all the reasons stated, not to mention a serious case of WP:SOAPBOX. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:24, 24 March 2011 (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.