Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic psychologist

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 Psychologist. Randykitty (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Academic psychologist[edit]

Academic psychologist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Personal essay Rathfelder (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The content seemed rather tendentious so I rewrote it. See WP:ATD and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew D. (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep numerous hits on the term in books and scholar searches. The article obviously needs the attention of an expert in the field to make it more than the current stub, but the term itself seems to be used enough to be notable. Neiltonks (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Psychologist. Redundant content fork, since much more information on academic psychologists is already included in the main article, and the distinction "academic" appears to be used primarily to distinguish psychologists from psychiatrists in publications aimed at laymen who hear "psychologist" and the image that jumps to mind is Frasier, but this distinction is one we already make with our separate psychologist and psychiatrist articles. Andrew's claim above and in his edit summary to have "rewritten" the page is misleading, as what he really did was blank it and replace it with a single sentence that made it an even more useless content fork than before. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The distinction made by the term "academic psychologist" is from "clinical psychologist" rather than "psychiatrist", in the same way that an academic lawyer is different from a practising lawyer. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's now less tendentious, but only a dictionary entry. Hard to see why a separate article is required. Rathfelder (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. This term is presumably used to distinguish an academic psychologist from a worker in popular psychology or an applied psychologist (worker in clinical, occupational or educational psychology). Do other sciences (physics, biology and chemistry) have a separate article on academic workers in their fields, to distinguish them from "popular science" or "applied science"? Vorbee (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Vorbee not that I can find. Nor do other professional fields. We do not, for example, have social work and academic social work, but the first sentence of Social work states: "Social work is an academic discipline and profession that..."E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Just needs cleanup & improvement. Term itself is notable. Skirts89 (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skirts89: What do you mean by "notable"? Can you give an example of encyclopedic content that could be included in the page under discussion but not Psychologist, the page of which I contend it is a content fork? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to psychologist or DELETE. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This common English usage is not a topic, merely a juxtaposition of two words with perfectly obvious plain English meanings. Note that we do not have articles on academic chemist, academic physician, or academic attorney although some attorneys practice while others are full time academics. This is not a topic, even though some advice books /articles have been published for psychologists who wish to pursue academic research careers. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to psychologist (otherwise delete). This distinction is not necessary at all. Do we really need "academic physicist", "academic zoologist", "academic sociologist", academic archaeologist", "academic computer scientist", etc.? MarkH21 (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 1) WP:NOTDICTIONARY and 2) nothing notable is even presented in this “article” it’s literally one goddamn sentence. Trillfendi (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite Andrew Davidson's rewrite from this version, I feel neither iteration offers anything significant beyond that already available at either Psychologist or Research psychologist. I had considered suggesting a 'redirect' to the latter but, surprisingly, the former actually offers better careers guidance, and I don't feel a redirect can be justified in this instance. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2019 (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.