Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Displacement (psiology, parapsychology, psychical science)


 * 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. John254 02:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Displacement (psiology, parapsychology, psychical science)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Plainly a neologism for statistical hypothesis testing made up by the parapsychology fringe community. Since the term has received no recognition from anybody outside of the psychic true-believers, it does not belong in our encyclopedia. No reliable sources identify it as distinct from the ideas associated with statistical effects. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Article describes specific usage of term within parapsychology literature. The usage is demonstrated by a range of references, so is clearly not a neologism. Other arguments for deletion reduce to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This terminology may be specific to one community, but that does not make it unencylopedic. The phenomenon that it describes may be a statistical artefact, but that does not make it unencyclopedic either. It could bear some re-writing for greater clarity, but that is not grounds for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Describes a well-known issue in investigations into claimed psychic abilities. Definitely not a neologism, I plainly recall the same term being in widespread use when I read about psychic claims in my teens... that would be during the 1980s.  The term is also used by skeptics discussing psychic claims, not that I feel this is particularly relevant to its notability.  There's a clear difference between neologism and jargon.  Article needs to be marked for cleanup as it appears to be written with the viewpoint that psychic effects are real, but this is not grounds for deletion.  JulesH (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sourced. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite for NPOV as a claimed effect. DGG (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument not current backed by any real reasoning. Artw (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.   —Artw (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: no third party sources to establish notability -- only sources (and few enough of them) are from WP:FRINGE journals. HrafnTalkStalk 12:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, the article is about the usage of the term in parapsychology literature, so most of the references will naturally come from that field, in the same way as most of the references in transubstantiation, say, are from Roman Catholic sources. But note that not all of the references are from parapsychology journals - I think Nature and the British Journal of Psychology certainly qualify as independent reliable sources, and establish notability . Gandalf61 (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE: "While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources." By way of example Transubstantiation demonstrates that this topic has notability that goes beyond Catholics. See also WP:FRINGE. HrafnTalkStalk 14:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would note that the Nature and the British Journal of Psychology citations are more than 60 years old (dating from the early 1940s). If the mainstream has not even looked at the topic since, I think that's a good reason not to consider it to be 'notable'. HrafnTalkStalk 15:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NTEMP: "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic". If independent references establish that the term was notable in the 1940s, then ipso facto it is still notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * or, for that matter, the 1840s. That it was actually covered by mainstream journals at any time is sufficient for unquestionable notability, and I see no reason for saying otherwise except a bias that as little as possible on the topic area should exist.   DGG (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (i) The reliability of scientific articles tends to degrade with time (as findings and conclusions are refined with more modern accurate equipment, more data, etc). (ii) WP:NTEMP is not phrased in terms of 'anything that was ever notable is still notable', but far more equivocal "If a subject has met the general notability guideline...". While this may be stretchable somewhat, it is probably not true that everything the Caesar found notable enough to write about in De Bello Gallico, or Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews, is still notable today. HrafnTalkStalk 16:50, 4 January 2009 (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.