Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychedelics in problem-solving experiment


 * 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 Draftify. There was general agreement, even amongst many who wanted to retain the material in some form, that this single study was not notable enough for a standalone page. There was also general agreement that a more general article on psychedelics and creativity might be viable. It is unclear whether or not this page is a suitable basis for constructing such an article, but there is no reason to stop editors from trying if they so wish. Hence draftify. SpinningSpark 14:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Psychedelics in problem-solving experiment

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A single science experiment with no reliable medical sources. It was initially redirected by in October 2017 after sequentially removing massive amounts of WP:COATRACK and non-RS, but was unilaterally restored in December by  on invalid grounds that "[i]n the current climate of research, fully sourced discussion on this subject is impossible". Alexbrn recently did another trim and then PRODded the article, but was deprodded by without explanation. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 21:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza<b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 21:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 21:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> I'm suprised to read that you concider that I didn't explain why I deprodded. I did explain it in the talk page before doing it as instructed. As you can see in the talk page the explanation is too long for edit summary. Perhaps you didn't see my explanation in the talk page?--Custoo (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about not reading it first. It wasn't very clear, however. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 20:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not-notable research experiment. The one notionally viable source (Doody) does not even mention this particular piece of research. If anything emerges per WP:NOPAGE it would in any case be better mentioned at James Fadiman where it would make better sense. Alexbrn (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge: I just published a revision on the article trying to demonstrate that it can be improved. I think it can be improved even more but I could only do so much with given time since 1) it's five days to christmas so I didn't acutely have more time to work on this 2) AfD process states that articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days so I might expect someone to make the decission as soon as tomorrow 3) I don't want to spend time working on this before I know it won't be deleted and I have the necessary time to work on it without unnecessary pressure from AfD process. Currently the article reads much like two other articles Concord Prison Experiment and Marsh Chapel Experiment. These articles build upon initial experiments done in the 1960s and continue with contemporary follow-ups.
 * The above argument by Alexbrn that the only viable source doesn't even mention this research doesn't hold true anymore as I have provided three more contemporary sources that cite the original research. This also brings into doubt the argument that this research is not notable. It seems notable enough for the contemporary researchers so that they cite and revisit it even 40 years afterwards.
 * I don't also think merging the current content to James Fadiman would make much sense as the scope of the article is no longer constricted to Fadimans work and also the first author was Willis Harman. If justification of standalone article is still disputed I could offer few other solutions.
 * The article could be reframed not to build upon the initial experiment but to be about studies of psychedelics effect on creativity and cognition in general. I guess it might then resemble the article Psychedelic therapy which sums up the research on therapeutic potential of psychedelics even though the clinical experiments are not still finished so that that the therapeutic use could be evaluated or aproved. I doubt though there will be as much contemporary material to add in future as there is for the topic of psychedelic therapy. I'm not sure this would be my favourite solution and that is based only in not having clear vision on how to rewrite the article.
 * Another solution could be to start a whole new article titled Psychedelic drug research. There would also be a root category ready to go with it. That article could bring together all the different research paths. To name few there could be 1) Effect on creativity and cognition, 2) psychedelic induced mystical experiences (Marsh Chapel Experiment and follow-ups), 3) effect on prisoners recidivism (Concord Prison Experiment and follow-ups), 4) brain imaging studies, 5) research on the quality of subjective altered states of concsiousness studied with altered states of concsiousness questionaire (5D-ASC), 6) microdosing studies 7) therapeutic studies already have article about them but it could be mentioned and then redirect there 8) pharmacology. This might reduse the tendency for standalone articles of experimental and novel topics on psychedelic research in the future as they could be included in the main article. This might make a pretty long article in the long run but then again any single topic could split into it's own article if necessary.
 * My first choice for now would still be to keep things as they are and start imporving this article as it is (in January after the holidays).--Custoo (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The trouble is most of your sourcing was unreliable (preprints? seriously?) The one review which does actually cite the experiment has little to say - not sufficient to establish notability. Alexbrn (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

<p class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC) Relisting comment: Leaning towards draftify as a WP:ATD but keeping an open mind... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify. There's an editor right here who wants to take this on. There's no sense in deleting it out from under them while they're working on it. But articles founded on unreliable sources shouldn't be hanging around in mainspace either. -- asilvering (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Just like a user mentioned, the experiment is not notable and does not warrant its own page in the articlespace at this time. No SIGCOV or indication of notability from multiple reliable sources exist. One of the peer-reviewed journal articles cited is self-published and directly associated with the subject. Multi7001 (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify for the reasons stated by asilvering. If it was not under active development by an editor I would say delete. Based on the coverage this material probably belongs as part of a broader article and not as its own page. Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per POV, notability. Any relevant content belongs on the notable scientist article (James Fadiman), not in this standalone which has such limited coverage. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete If a general article is appropriate, it can be written independently of tryign to reuse this.  DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify. The current article should not be in mainspace, but it feels needlessly unkind to delete it when an active editor has expressed strong interest in revising it. This and other studies done by Harman, McKim, Mogar, Fadiman, etc in the 1960s can eventually be covered in a general article about psychedelics and cognition/perception. Aeffenberger (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete No evidence that this progressed beyond pilot studies and preliminary stages of investigation or that this is an actively-debated or pursued field of study in academic research. Draftify would just leave it in purgatory. If there is legitimate research conducted in this area some day, it can be re-created. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 18:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify per Aeffenberger. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep or Draftify I endorse retaining the original content in a modified version of the original article. Until then the original should be republished as the current version lacks useful information related to the article title. Also, I note reference above to the lack of published evidence when in fact the original study this article was based on linked to (James Fadiman) has a robust academic publishing and source in both academia and book form. Additionally, it is claimed that this is NOT an actively studied t or debated field when in fact it is. Please see NL Marson (2021) with over 10 citations for example among a number of recent studies in the last decade. Other earlier but more recent studies which investigate psychedelics in a creativity context include Janiger & Dobkin de Rios (1989). I emphasise that having an article based on a single study is not proportionate but 1) the topic is indeed being investigated, 2) significant interest is currently ongoing in psychedelics. Therefore, I suggest redraft of this article to focus on psychedelics and creativity with a subsection created for the original (James Fadiman) study with greater focus on background. I have personal interest in this topic and have used this page heavily. Dt00073 (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , please refer to WP:NOMEDICAL. Personal interest or opinions of utility do not represent notability. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.