Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of words considered to be psychobabble


 * 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, and give User:SkierRMH an ABD. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 01:58Z 

List of words considered to be psychobabble

 * — (View AfD)

An example of listcruft that fails WP:NEO, WP:OR and WP:NPOV from its title alone. Add in verifiability issues and you have one unnecessary list. Danny Lilithborne 03:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Who determines what is psycho-babble? POV. Delete. Tito xd (?!?) 03:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this wikibabble. Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 03:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Inherently POV. Tevildo 04:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MER-C 05:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Sr13 (T|C) 05:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete blatant POV; author was trying so hard to be clever and fell flat on his face. Opabinia regalis 06:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I've been thinking about nominating this myself. Like I said on the talk page; how can it ever be anything but POV?  However, if someone could provide some sources (considered to be psychobabble by XYZ) I might change my mind.  Maybe. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk 14:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Big  top  18:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Considered by whom? --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nomination --Mhking 22:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and move to "Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense". J0lt C0la 01:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this authentic candidate for deletion will inspire anger in some, especially those who may be bipolar. This is not even a borderline case, but a concerning example of a dysfunctional article. If we get rid of it and move on, it'll be a win-win for everyone. Seraphimblade 03:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're getting it. I really resonate the idea that that comment represents the creation of a meaningful relationship between irony and humor. LOL. Tito xd (?!?) 08:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Deletion Congruence  Breakthrough! This metamodel group takes responsibility, resonating with one another's integration issues, coming to a holistic, non-spaced out, validly facilitated, grounded, authentic, new paradigm. We get it, believing that this is a win-win situation; using the submodaility of synergy in a non-threatening, meaningful relationship, Now that we have unblocked our baggage and stuff, are not longer stressed out, and understanding the consequences of our choices, we come to a non-co-dependent congruence of minds. We now empower and validate an administrator, for the wellbeing of Wikipedia, to have the insight and visioning to bring this to closure.  Anyone disagreeing; please deal with your disgnosable dysfunctional anger issues, your bi-polar disorder, Manic-Depressive, Borderline, boundary, or schizophrenic problems elsewhere. You need to move on, find some self esteem, self-acutalize; not be threatened by the transformation of this paradigm by it's memetic infection vector.
 * Do I get a PhD in Psychology for the title of my new dissertation topic? :)SkierRMH 23:21, 23 December 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.