Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial psychology


 * 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. Tone 11:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Artificial psychology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TNT: I believe the current contents of the article are entirely original research. It was created in 2008 with no references, by a brand-new user who hasn't made any other substantial contributions. The article attributed the theory to a "Dan Curtis (b. 1963-)"; I have been unable to find any direct record of Mr. Curtis's work on the topic. Instead, there are a number of post-2008 sources which vaguely attribute the idea to Curtis, with some calling 1963 his year of birth, others the year in which he coined the term. For instance, : these all seem to me instances of citogenesis/cribbing from Wikipedia.

Separately, a number of Chinese researchers have published work on an "artificial psychology" concept (e.g., ): This is distinct from the Curtis idea in that it involves using computers to model or analyze human psychology, rather than using psychological techniques to "reason" with an artificial intelligence. I am unable to determine whether the Chinese concept would merit a stand-alone article. Cheers, gnu 57 15:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. gnu 57  15:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. gnu 57  15:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. gnu 57  15:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * keep Whereas the proposal is correct in that as it stands this article is rather poor however there are appropriate secondary sources that discuss this topic, suggesting the article is salvageable. EvilxFish (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that other sources have discussed concepts called "artificial psychology" (which appear to me to overlap in scope with cognitive engineering) ; but I believe the particular contents of this article to be entirely made-up. Cheers, gnu 57 01:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This source appears reliable to me. I do recognise the concerns about citogenesis/circular referencing, but the source is peer-reviewed, which to me is a significant mitigating factor.  If the original Wikipedia article was just made up, then the peers who were doing the reviewing would have caught that.  I would tend to believe that instead, the original author was a subject-matter expert or knowledgeable student who had access to material that isn't free online.—S Marshall T/C 10:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * keep Article could use some work but it is fine to build upon. DeloreanTimeMachine (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * keep But it needs many changes. I generally agree with the nom and think the first place this was published was here. That is why we need to correct it here. If we delete the article someone will add those refs based on (probable) cytogenesis. I'm not trusting any post-2008 source. I would change it back to "Dan Curtis (b. 1963-)". Was that more common for people without articles in 2008? Could make 3-4 sections for usage over time.Ngram chart Maybe pre-computer, early computer, Chinese researchers, Curtis section. This book from 1974 might be good for early computer Homo Cyberneticus: Artificial psychology and generative micro-sociology. StrayBolt (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.