Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuropsychophysiology (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Neuropsychophysiology}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neuropsychophysiology_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Neuropsychophysiology}})

I nominated this for deletion a while back and still think it was kept on rather flimsy grounds. The evidence for this "field" being an actual thing distinct from neuropsychology or physiological psychology has become even weaker in the interim. It's also an orphan. It really should disappear. Famous_dog (c) 12:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Famous_dog (c) 13:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Famous_dog (c) 13:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• When I first saw this term here, my immediate gut reaction was to call to keep the article. However, having just read the article and seen how badly written it is, I think I can understand pleas to delete it. It even says at the end "neuro" and "physiology" both mean brain. I think this is nonsense - neuro means to do with the whole nervous system and all the nerves within it (not just the brain) and I think that one would be hard-pressed to find a respected figure in medicine or science who thought that "physiology" meant brain. Vorbee (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Famous_dog (c) 06:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• delete per WP:TNT GBook and GScholar searches show there might be an article to be written here, but what we have is almost a BLP violation, basically alleging that the thing is nonsense and giving a name for the supposed inventor, without citation. Better to start over. Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• delete this is just promoting a FRINGEY altmed set of practices and people with some medical sounding "fun with greek", very similar to the list of phobias nonsense that goes on. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep and reviseit may clarify things to examine earlier versions from the history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuropsychophysiology&oldid=297170655, changed to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuropsychophysiology&oldid=350761136 and then changed to the current version. It would appear that an originally positive article on what the first afd thought was sufficiently notable has been changed by the nominator into a negative article--with the negative material completely unsourced, and apparently justified in the edit summaries as"(I lecture in psychophysiology and neuroscience, so I reckon I'm a good enough "expert"", who then nominated for deletion. I consider this a very unjustifiable way of dealing with it--whether or not it is nonsense. It is altogether unfair to first destroy an article and then list it for deletion. (I am making no judgment on whether or not the concept is nonsense). The proper way is to write a NPOV article with the negative material sourced instead of merely asserted, and then possibly considering it for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

::Whoah, hang on a minute. I feel like I'm being accused of something. This article has never been any good, no matter how far you go back in it's history. I came across it when it was tagged for attention by an expert and I couldn't find any evidence that it was anything other than fringy fringeness promoted by somebody who has since shut down their website. The "positive" form of this article was positive because it was full of promotion, inappropriate synth and unsourcery. The more "negative" statements in the current version of the article are also unsourced because this isn't a thing. I still do not understand why this was kept after the first AfD, and since nobody has bothered to improve it since then it should probably just be put out of it's misery. There is nothing notable or verifiable about this supposed "field." Famous_dog (c) 10:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:TNT: there may be a notable topic here somewhere, but this article ain't it. My favourite part was:

:*...is a term coined by Michele Trimarchi{{who|date=August 2017}} ...

:Barring some major cleanup in the course of this AfD (if this even possible), I'm going with "delete". No objection to restoration, if it can be done with RS, in an encyclopedic fashion. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete One of the few times TNT will make me actaully !Vote del instead keep. The best word I could find to describe this was nonsense, so I may have a bit of bias against it. The title should be at the spelling bee. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.