Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuropsychophysiology


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Neuropsychophysiology
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable, unreliable sources, advert Famousdog (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a non-notable and possibly non-existent "field" of psychology. The term neuropsychophysiology is a tautological, pseudo-psychological term that I suspect is simply a marketing ploy for alt-med therapy. The pages on neuropsychology and psychophysiology would seem to cover the subject matter of this "field" already. The sources are not reliable (except for ones used solely to "prove" that it is a term in academic usage). The main reference to this topic is a self-published source, and it leads me to believe that it is simply an advert for the services of Michele Trimarchi. It is also an orphan and has been for a while. Famousdog (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Tbe word appears to be used in a variety of sources.  I cannot tell from searching alone whether any of those sources use it in a way that relates to this article, or whether there is some other coherent definition.  Straight Google Scholar yields 403 hits; when I add -Trimarchi (exclude hits with "Trimarchi") I still get 398, suggesting that whatever the Scholar hits mean when they use the term, Ms. Trimarchi's theories are not it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. For an article claiming to detail an entire field of research, 403 hits is actually extremely low, especially when you consider Google Scholar's rather (ahem) loose inclusion criteria. "Neuropsychology" gets 450,000 hits. "Psychophysiology" gets 300,000. Those 403 hits could be 403 typos, where people have written "neuropsychophysiology" instead of "neuropsychology" or "psychophysiology"! I recommend that this page simply be replaced by a disambig pointing to either of the other two fields. Famousdog (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep There's a book called Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychophysiology. I've not had a sight of its contents but here's a review in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry which indicates that it is respectable.   So, the topic seems to be notable and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment There is unfortunately no definition in that review of what the authors consider "neuropsychophysiology". From the text of the review, the book seems to be discussing psychophysiology. Famousdog (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A Google Book search shows that the term is widely used, though it is hard to be sure all writers mean exactly what this article presently says about it. "Personality Dimensions and Arousal"(Springer, 1997) uses the term in Chapter 9 and distinguishes it from neurophysiology and psychophysiology. Page 172 refers to "contemporary neuropsychophysiological research." Some of the other books discussing it at Google Book search include "Virtual reality in neuro-psycho-physiology" (1997,IOS Press),  "Clinical and experimental neuropsychophysiology" (Croom Helm, 1985). It is discussed in"Handbook of psychophysiology," (Cambridge University Press, 2007) and Contemporary hypnosis research (The Guilford Press, 1992). There are multiple reliable and independent sources with in-depth coverage of "neuropsychophysiology," so it is appropriate to have an article on the subject. Anything promotional of some alt-therapy or providing undue weight should be corrected by editing. The article history shows an appropriate stub in March of 2010, after which it gained a lot of argumentative and POV edits announcing that the term is a meaningless tautology. I suggest that that version be restored in large measure, and as the article is expanded and improved it can be referenced to some of the books I cited and some of the Google scholar results identified above.  Edison (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Respectfully, Google Books has even looser standards than Google Scholar. I have looked at those references and in the first one, I cannot see where the author "distinguishes it from neurophysiology and psychophysiology" as you say he does. The only use of the term seems to be as a synonym for psychophysiology. In the second reference, the ONLY appearence of "neuro-psycho-physiology" appears to be the title of the book. There is no mention of it within the book! The third source isn't available online so I can't acquire a definition from it. In the fourth source, there are only 3 mentions in the body of the book and, undefined, it seems to be used as a synonym for (again) psychophysiology. The third source uses the term extensively without defining it, and it's a book on hypnosis, so I would doubt its scientific credentials anyway (I know, I know, prejediced). Finally, I think its worth pointing out that several of the relevant authors that use the term work in non-English countries. Frankly, this term is simply a grand-sounding and probably incorrectly used synonym for psychophysiology. I strongly recommend that we simply redirect this page or disambig to neuropsychology and psychophysiology. Famousdog (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The nom;' objections seem to be over the fact that the term is used in the RW, although it shouldn't be. But we reflect the real world, and follow what ever they choose to do in such matters. Authors name books, and title articles; GScholar and G Books just list them as they are. We follow whatever the people in the field do; we don't try to redefine the field.  DGG ( talk ) 12:41, 31 October 2011 (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.