Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Psychologist


 * 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. W.marsh 18:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Internet Psychologist

 * Delete: Appears to be made-up term. About 800 Google hits which may or may not represent hits for the "occupation".  If it were really an occupation, that number should be much higher anyway.  Article's original intent was blatant spam but the spam has been removed. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MER-C 12:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. What about CSD A7? Imo  eng  14:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a weird one for CSD A7. A7 is more for people, groups, bands, etc. - not for a possibly invented occupation.  Even blatant hoaxes aren't speedy material (there's a specific note to that effect at the bottom of WP:CSD) although I'll delete more obvious ones like "John Smith is the greatest person in the world" under a combination of removing all hoax material and then deleting the resulting empty article as CSD A1.  But I digress - if another admin wants to overrule and speedy this one, I wouldn't object.  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that example is a canonical "short article with no context". It provides no clue at all as to which John Smith it is about. For this article, the question is whether there is a recognized sub-field of psychology that concentrates specifically upon Internet.  That's not a decision that can be reliably made by just one pair of eyes. Uncle G 16:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. I mean, in general, even if an article starts with "John Smith is the greatest person in the world" and expounds on 100 different ways he is the greatest person in the world, there is a clear assertion of notability.  But, it's so obviously a childish hoax that every sentence can be removed which would leave nothing.  Rather than CSD A7, I use CSD A3 for cases as silly as those.  :)  But yes, I'm not nearly as confident about the removability of anything in this article.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2006 (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.