Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying monkeys (popular psychology)

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. Daniel (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flying monkeys (popular psychology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Five y/o stub that originally included four sources,[1][2] two of which aren't RS (Childress and Mayfield), another doubtful (Dodgson), and another of unclear relevance (Bowen). Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY: the Childress source referenced the Urban Dictionary, no new RS were found on Google Scholar, and only two were found on a "regular" search.[3][4] Note the article is linked by 59 pages excluding this discussion.[5] François Robere (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. François Robere (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. François Robere (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if sources 2 and 3 in the article (the ones by Claire Jack and Christine Hammond) are considered reliable. WP:GNG is a pretty low bar, merely requiring significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Both of the sources I mentioned above contain significant coverage and are independent, so the topic just barely meets the WP:GNG threshold. However, this is under the assumption that those sources qualify as reliable. If those two sources wouldn't qualify as reliable, then ignore this comment. Mlb96 (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Karpman drama triangle or Triangulation (psychology) or delete The current RS (1) is a business writer who is using a messageboard (lovefraud.com) and a blogger as her reliable source. The other 2 RS are two bloggers - a hypnotist/life coach and another messageboard writer. To provide context, all of this is part of the popular but misguided "your ex-boyfriend (girlfriend) must have been a sociopath" culture. This is junk psychology and the harm is that the audience, people often with underdeveloped human nature skills, are buying into this stuff rather than learning how to improve their emotional intelligence. For all of this "sociopath" drama to be true the population of sociopaths and narcissists would need to be 3,000 times larger than it actually is. I'm not suggesting we post any of my comments, but they should be a consideration in deciding the future of this article.Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If it is determined that the article will be kept, it would be wise to loop in the conventional family theory concept of triangulation which is the closet psychology construct to "flying monkeys". It has a good body of helpful article on the Internet. I attempted to do this, but there are not any expert sources writing about "flying monkeys", let alone doing serious work establish similarities. Best I could find was a nationally recognized expert (Childress, UCLA) who makes the connection in a newsletter between flying monkeys and tribulation and a RS to a prestigious academic source, the Murry Bowen Center for the Study of Families at Georgetown University. Redirecting would be best. If we delete, the article will just come back. Wiki-psyc (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Once the bulk of the unreliable sources had been stripped from the prior longer version of this article, all that was left was a stub. Of the remaining three references to support the stub, two are blogs that do not qualify as reliable sources. If it can be redirected to a single sentence in a substantive article on the broader subject, that it fine. As an aside, this article appears to have been one of hundreds on pop psychology written by the same person, who apparently departed Wikipedia a couple of years ago. A quick survey of them reveals that most suffer from the same or similar deficiencies as this one, but no-one has bothered to clean them up. Banks Irk (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:The Psychology Today source is a blog post and not a news release. And the PsychCentral post is also part of a blog/opinion column. Both sources cannot be used to establish notability, as blogging content in major mass media outlets tend to be written by non-authoritative producers. The BI source only includes a subtle passing mention. Multi7001 (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 30 December 2021 (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.