Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychonaut

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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychonaut

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, or collections of various items related to same. No cites - has been tagged with "This article does not cite any references or sources" since May 2007. Writtenonsand (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychonaut (disambiguation). It has its own website, but that's about it. Without sources, it doesn't need any more definition than the small and succinct one given on the disambig page. FusionMix 23:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would make better sense to delete this and move the disambig here. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. No appreciable coverage in mainstream media. Stifle (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Made up in one day? The article has hundreds of revisions going back to 21:05, 23 March 2004. (Interestingly it was started from a Level 3 Communications computer). Invalid rationale for deletion. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as to that litle matter of the lack of cites? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT, I don't see lack of sources as grounds for deletion, after-all, we don't have a deadline. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Lots of sources available to those with access to academic journals and the time to read them. Trachys (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to start getting argumentative here, but per WP:Verifiability ("one of Wikipedia's core content policies"): "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Not "attributable", but "attributed". -- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Slap an uncited tag for the time being, as references can easily be found.Trips (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 79.122.2.253 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep using Scholar shows sources that aren't the video game TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:34, 3 May 2008 (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.