Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychohistory (fictional 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 redirect‎ to Foundation universe#Psychohistory. asilvering (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Psychohistory (fictional science)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly unsourced or sourced to the author himself. This appears to be a split of the Foundation universe and describes similar subject matter with less references. It could be a useful redirect but there is otherwise very little sourced material to WP:PRESERVE. Jontesta (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either trim down ruthlessly or delete; this article has become massively overgrown, and its material belongs in either the Foundation universe article or the articles about the individual books. — The Anome (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Jontesta: There seem to be quite a few hits in secondary sources on first glance. Could you please comment on the results of the WP:BEFORE search? Or was there a main reason other than notability for the deletion nomination? Daranios (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My main rationale is that this is a WP:FORK of Foundation universe. My WP:BEFORE search only offered limited material that is already covered at Foundation universe or the individual books. (Or sometimes Hari Seldon.) The creator of the article agreed to deletion or an WP:ATD associated with the universe article. Jontesta (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of whether this is notable, the current contents—being almost entirely (excessively detailed) in-universe information—do not warrant a stand-alone article as opposed to covering the relevant bits in related articles on the works themselves, as suggested above. If the article is not expanded with other kinds of content during the course of this discussion, it would seem like a pretty clear WP:NOPAGE situation at the moment. I would also question whether the extremely lengthy excerpts/quotes in the "Asimov on psychohistory" are okay from a copyright perspective. TompaDompa (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foundation universe#Technology where what it is and its role in the plot of the series is already described. As it is a core component of the plot of the franchise, I agree completely with TompaDompa that this is a WP:NOPAGE situation where it is best covered as part of overall discussion of the series and has no need to be spun out as a separate article, particularly when that separate article is just ridiculously overly detailed plot information. Rorshacma (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I've now created a "Psychohistory" sub-section within the Foundation universe article, as the concept is so central to the plot of the series. But it needs nowhere near the level of detail in this article, which is quite excessive. — The Anome (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nice! I would recommend Foundation universe#Psychohistory as my updated recommendation for a Redirect target, then. Rorshacma (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No before articulated, a brief search shows Journal of Psychohistory exists, so we need to have a clear delineation of why this isn't that--that is, I understand the differences, but those arguing for deletion own the burden to demonstrate why <2 of all RS citing psychohistory might apply to this topic. Much per Daranios, but this needs to be a bit more forceful. "This article sucks" is a great argument for cleanup, to which I have no objection, but not a valid argument for deletion. I am glad that Rorshacma and others understand that this must at least remain a redirect, but it is not clear to me why BLAR was not tried first. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see the delineation between Psychohistory the real science discussed by the Journal of Psychohistory and Psychohistory (fictional science)? WP:AGF, I am trying to understand why you are bringing up a journal about a different topic, covered by a different article, which is not up for deletion. Jontesta (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to rephrase: Since there is both a real science and a fictional science, there's a lot of BEFORE to go through, none of which has been demonstrated, to assess that there's nothing with which to improve the article. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, improvement need not necessarily happen at this title. If the current contents would be better covered at a different article (or several) per WP:PAGEDECIDE, there's nothing stopping us from doing that and splitting those contents into a stand-alone article if and when improvement/expansion has happened to a sufficient extent that doing so would be motivated. TompaDompa (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it's rather peculiar to simultaneously argue that the article should be kept and that it would have been better to WP:Blank and redirect the article than to bring it to WP:AfD. Those seem like contradictory positions to me, but maybe there's something I'm missing. TompaDompa (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all; both are process-based critiques: 1) BEFORE wasn't attempted based on the confounding similarly named real science, and 2) if all that was desired was BLAR, why was BLAR not done editorially before bringing this needlessly to AfD? Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are aware that WP:BLARs are frequently contested and editors told to take it to WP:AfD. Some editors even consider WP:BLAR without preceding AfD to be an inappropriate form of "stealth deletion". AfD is one way to build consensus and get a mandate for redirects and merges expected to be potentially controversial. WP:BLAR says An RfC closed in 2021 found Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting. and WP:CONRED, which is part of WP:BEFORE, says that If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.. For that matter, WP:BEFORE says to Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability—but the stated reason in the nomination is not a lack of notability but being a needless split. You seem to me to be overly focused on process to the detriment of actually determining what the best course of action for dealing with the article and its contents might be. Remember that WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. TompaDompa (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was there any indication that this was controversial? I didn't see one, but I clearly could have missed it. I'm not a huge fan of unannounced BLARs either, but I've learned a while ago that we've developed a process that's a cohesive whole, even the parts I don't prefer, and that running the process in good faith is the best way to achieve encyclopedic results. That's not bureaucratic so much as it is a series of checks and balances. Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there was any such indication here specifically, but I also don't think it really matters—it's not unreasonable to expect something like this to be potentially controversial. Saying that this is not bureaucratic so much as it is a series of checks and balances sounds like a distinction without a difference when your argument for keeping this article is entirely on procedural grounds rather than the merits of the article, its contents, and its topic. TompaDompa (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has someone done a BEFORE yet and I missed it? Jclemens (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per this: yes. More importantly however, it is not required: if the rationale in the nomination is not a lack of notability, a search for sources to ascertain notability is not required per WP:BEFORE (the specific instructions are If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. and Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability). Likewise, using WP:AfD to discuss potential redirects is encouraged in some cases per WP:CONRED: If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. So no BEFORE has been done that even acknowledges my concerns. Not sure why you felt necessary to point out that it is expected but then say that it isn't, but the fact remains that no one seems to have addressed the overlap in RS coverage between the fictional and real disciplines besides me. Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can explain to you again that searching for additional sources is only required if a nomination is based on a lack of notability and that this isn't the case here, but it's probably easier if you just read what I wrote previously. I reckon the reason nobody other than you has brought up the real-world discipline psychohistory is that it is a red herring. Your concern is about matters external to Wikipedia, namely the coverage in the sources, whereas the larger discussion is about matters internal to Wikipedia, namely the best way to cover the topic (specifically, WP:PAGEDECIDE). These questions are orthogonal to each other, which I'm sure you understand if you think about it for a moment. TompaDompa (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foundation universe#Psychohistory per WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. This is already described at Foundation universe and there isn't much sourced material to WP:PRESERVE. Editors can further merge if needed, but I agree that sources discuss this overall as part of the series. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foundation universe#Psychohistory per WP:ATD. — The Anome (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per other voters. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.