818:) has a robust academic publishing and source in both academia and book form. Additionally, it is claimed that this is NOT an actively studied t or debated field when in fact it is. Please see NL Marson (2021) with over 10 citations for example among a number of recent studies in the last decade. Other earlier but more recent studies which investigate psychedelics in a creativity context include Janiger & Dobkin de Rios (1989). I emphasise that having an article based on a single study is not proportionate but 1) the topic is indeed being investigated, 2) significant interest is currently ongoing in psychedelics. Therefore, I suggest redraft of this article to focus on psychedelics and creativity with a subsection created for the original (
52:. There was general agreement, even amongst many who wanted to retain the material in some form, that this single study was not notable enough for a standalone page. There was also general agreement that a more general article on psychedelics and creativity might be viable. It is unclear whether or not this page is a suitable basis for constructing such an article, but there is no reason to stop editors from trying if they so wish. Hence draftify.
712:. The current article should not be in mainspace, but it feels needlessly unkind to delete it when an active editor has expressed strong interest in revising it. This and other studies done by Harman, McKim, Mogar, Fadiman, etc in the 1960s can eventually be covered in a general article about psychedelics and cognition/perception.
493:
at least seven days so I might expect someone to make the decission as soon as tomorrow 3) I don't want to spend time working on this before I know it won't be deleted and I have the necessary time to work on it without unnecessary pressure from AfD process. Currently the article reads much like two other articles
634:: Just like a user mentioned, the experiment is not notable and does not warrant its own page in the articlespace at this time. No SIGCOV or indication of notability from multiple reliable sources exist. One of the peer-reviewed journal articles cited is self-published and directly associated with the subject.
542:
already have article about them but it could be mentioned and then redirect there 8) pharmacology. This might reduse the tendency for standalone articles of experimental and novel topics on psychedelic research in the future as they could be included in the main article. This might make a pretty long
533:
ready to go with it. That article could bring together all the different research paths. To name few there could be 1) Effect on creativity and cognition, 2) psychedelic induced mystical experiences (Marsh Chapel
Experiment and follow-ups), 3) effect on prisoners recidivism (Concord Prison Experiment
813:
I endorse retaining the original content in a modified version of the original article. Until then the original should be republished as the current version lacks useful information related to the article title. Also, I note reference above to the lack of published evidence when in fact the original
492:
on the article trying to demonstrate that it can be improved. I think it can be improved even more but I could only do so much with given time since 1) it's five days to christmas so I didn't acutely have more time to work on this 2) AfD process states that articles listed are normally discussed for
525:
which sums up the research on therapeutic potential of psychedelics even though the clinical experiments are not still finished so that that the therapeutic use could be evaluated or aproved. I doubt though there will be as much contemporary material to add in future as there is for the topic of
771:
No evidence that this progressed beyond pilot studies and preliminary stages of investigation or that this is an actively-debated or pursued field of study in academic research. Draftify would just leave it in purgatory. If there is legitimate research conducted in this area some day, it can be
506:
The above argument by
Alexbrn that the only viable source doesn't even mention this research doesn't hold true anymore as I have provided three more contemporary sources that cite the original research. This also brings into doubt the argument that this research is not notable. It seems notable
204:
585:. There's an editor right here who wants to take this on. There's no sense in deleting it out from under them while they're working on it. But articles founded on unreliable sources shouldn't be hanging around in mainspace either. --
267:) on invalid grounds that "n the current climate of research, fully sourced discussion on this subject is impossible". Alexbrn recently did another trim and then PRODded the article, but was deprodded by
521:
The article could be reframed not to build upon the initial experiment but to be about studies of psychedelics effect on creativity and cognition in general. I guess it might then resemble the article
134:
129:
198:
138:
121:
534:
and follow-ups), 4) brain imaging studies, 5) research on the quality of subjective altered states of concsiousness studied with altered states of concsiousness questionaire (5D-ASC), 6)
161:
348:
313:
93:
459:. Not-notable research experiment. The one notionally viable source (Doody) does not even mention this particular piece of research. If anything emerges per
108:
219:
186:
526:
psychedelic therapy. I'm not sure this would be my favourite solution and that is based only in not having clear vision on how to rewrite the article.
863:
831:
801:
784:
759:
721:
704:
685:
664:
643:
624:
594:
573:
555:
476:
447:
411:
375:
340:
305:
63:
546:
My first choice for now would still be to keep things as they are and start imporving this article as it is (in
January after the holidays).--
180:
441:
369:
334:
299:
402:. As you can see in the talk page the explanation is too long for edit summary. Perhaps you didn't see my explanation in the talk page?--
176:
530:
395:
125:
88:
81:
17:
226:
117:
69:
860:
781:
264:
399:
102:
98:
514:
would make much sense as the scope of the article is no longer constricted to
Fadimans work and also the first author was
246:
732:
603:
278:
192:
882:
40:
165:
822:) study with greater focus on background. I have personal interest in this topic and have used this page heavily.
494:
660:
529:
Another solution could be to start a whole new article titled
Psychedelic drug research. There would also be a
436:
364:
329:
294:
655:. Based on the coverage this material probably belongs as part of a broader article and not as its own page.
797:
535:
501:. These articles build upon initial experiments done in the 1960s and continue with contemporary follow-ups.
498:
58:
717:
848:
878:
258:
36:
827:
543:
article in the long run but then again any single topic could split into it's own article if necessary.
250:
651:
for the reasons stated by asilvering. If it was not under active development by an editor I would say
394:
I'm suprised to read that you concider that I didn't explain why I deprodded. I did explain it in the
590:
857:
778:
656:
639:
539:
522:
424:
383:
352:
317:
282:
254:
212:
842:
823:
507:
enough for the contemporary researchers so that they cite and revisit it even 40 years afterwards.
460:
793:
755:
677:
560:
The trouble is most of your sourcing was unreliable (preprints? seriously?) The one review which
53:
713:
693:
If a general article is appropriate, it can be written independently of tryign to reuse this.
569:
472:
240:
77:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
877:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
518:. If justification of standalone article is still disputed I could offer few other solutions.
235:
A single science experiment with no reliable medical sources. It was initially redirected by
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
551:
407:
272:
744:
586:
564:
actually cite the experiment has little to say - not sufficient to establish notability.
852:
773:
635:
615:
819:
815:
751:
700:
673:
515:
511:
464:
672:
per POV, notability. Any relevant content belongs on the notable scientist article (
565:
468:
236:
155:
547:
418:
403:
268:
695:
851:. Personal interest or opinions of utility do not represent notability.
423:
I'm sorry about not reading it first. It wasn't very clear, however. –
249:) in October 2017 after sequentially removing massive amounts of
873:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
735:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
676:), not in this standalone which has such limited coverage. —
606:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
253:
and non-RS, but was unilaterally restored in
December by
489:
151:
147:
143:
211:
750:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
612:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
225:
510:I don't also think merging the current content to
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
885:). No further edits should be made to this page.
347:Note: This discussion has been included in the
312:Note: This discussion has been included in the
349:list of Medicine-related deletion discussions
8:
463:it would in any case be better mentioned at
314:list of Science-related deletion discussions
109:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
814:study this article was based on linked to (
346:
311:
118:Psychedelics in problem-solving experiment
70:Psychedelics in problem-solving experiment
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
467:where it would make better sense.
24:
94:Introduction to deletion process
743:Leaning towards draftify as a
1:
760:00:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
722:17:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
705:05:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
686:13:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
665:04:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
644:02:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
625:07:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
595:20:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
574:21:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
556:21:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
477:09:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
448:20:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
412:17:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
376:21:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
341:21:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
306:21:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
864:16:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
832:23:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
802:13:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
64:14:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
785:18:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
747:but keeping an open mind...
84:(AfD)? Read these primers!
902:
495:Concord Prison Experiment
875:Please do not modify it.
281:) without explanation. –
32:Please do not modify it.
499:Marsh Chapel Experiment
166:edits since nomination
82:Articles for deletion
540:therapeutic studies
536:microdosing studies
523:Psychedelic therapy
488:: I just published
847:, please refer to
792:per Aeffenberger.
741:Relisting comment:
762:
627:
623:
378:
343:
99:Guide to deletion
89:How to contribute
893:
855:
846:
776:
749:
738:
736:
683:
680:
622:
620:
613:
611:
609:
607:
444:
439:
422:
398:before doing it
372:
367:
337:
332:
302:
297:
230:
229:
215:
159:
141:
79:
34:
901:
900:
896:
895:
894:
892:
891:
890:
889:
883:deletion review
853:
840:
774:
731:
729:
681:
678:
616:
614:
602:
600:
442:
437:
416:
370:
365:
335:
330:
300:
295:
172:
132:
116:
113:
76:
73:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
899:
897:
888:
887:
869:
868:
867:
866:
835:
834:
804:
787:
765:
764:
748:
739:
725:
724:
707:
688:
667:
657:Caleb Stanford
646:
610:
598:
597:
579:
578:
577:
576:
544:
527:
519:
508:
503:
502:
479:
453:
452:
451:
450:
380:
379:
344:
233:
232:
169:
112:
111:
106:
96:
91:
74:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
898:
886:
884:
880:
876:
871:
870:
865:
862:
859:
856:
850:
844:
839:
838:
837:
836:
833:
829:
825:
821:
820:James Fadiman
817:
816:James Fadiman
812:
808:
805:
803:
799:
795:
794:Heartmusic678
791:
788:
786:
783:
780:
777:
770:
767:
766:
763:
761:
757:
753:
746:
742:
737:
734:
727:
726:
723:
719:
715:
711:
708:
706:
702:
698:
697:
692:
689:
687:
684:
675:
674:James Fadiman
671:
668:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
647:
645:
641:
637:
633:
630:
629:
628:
626:
621:
619:
608:
605:
596:
592:
588:
584:
581:
580:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
558:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
532:
531:root category
528:
524:
520:
517:
516:Willis Harman
513:
512:James Fadiman
509:
505:
504:
500:
496:
491:
487:
483:
480:
478:
474:
470:
466:
465:James Fadiman
462:
458:
455:
454:
449:
445:
440:
434:
433:
430:
427:
420:
415:
414:
413:
409:
405:
401:
400:as instructed
397:
393:
392:
389:
386:
382:
381:
377:
373:
368:
362:
361:
358:
355:
350:
345:
342:
338:
333:
327:
326:
323:
320:
315:
310:
309:
308:
307:
303:
298:
292:
291:
288:
285:
280:
277:
274:
270:
266:
263:
260:
256:
252:
248:
245:
242:
238:
228:
224:
221:
218:
214:
210:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
178:
175:
174:Find sources:
170:
167:
163:
157:
153:
149:
145:
140:
136:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
114:
110:
107:
104:
100:
97:
95:
92:
90:
87:
86:
85:
83:
78:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
61:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
874:
872:
849:WP:NOMEDICAL
810:
806:
789:
772:re-created.
768:
740:
730:
728:
714:Aeffenberger
709:
694:
690:
669:
652:
648:
631:
617:
601:
599:
582:
561:
485:
481:
456:
431:
428:
425:
390:
387:
384:
359:
356:
353:
324:
321:
318:
289:
286:
283:
275:
261:
243:
234:
222:
216:
208:
201:
195:
189:
183:
173:
75:
59:
54:
49:
47:
31:
28:
251:WP:COATRACK
199:free images
679:Shibboleth
618:Sandstein
587:asilvering
490:a revision
879:talk page
861:(contrib)
854:Eggishorn
782:(contrib)
775:Eggishorn
636:Multi7001
461:WP:NOPAGE
396:talk page
37:talk page
881:or in a
811:Draftify
790:Draftify
752:Missvain
733:Relisted
710:Draftify
649:Draftify
604:Relisted
583:Draftify
279:contribs
265:contribs
255:Ianneman
247:contribs
162:View log
103:glossary
55:Spinning
50:Draftify
39:or in a
843:Dt00073
824:Dt00073
566:Alexbrn
469:Alexbrn
426:Laundry
385:Laundry
354:Laundry
319:Laundry
284:Laundry
237:Alexbrn
205:WP refs
193:scholar
135:protect
130:history
80:New to
858:(talk)
779:(talk)
769:Delete
745:WP:ATD
691:Delete
670:Delete
653:delete
632:Delete
548:Custoo
457:Delete
419:Custoo
404:Custoo
269:Custoo
177:Google
139:delete
701:talk
486:Merge
429:Pizza
388:Pizza
357:Pizza
322:Pizza
287:Pizza
220:JSTOR
181:books
156:views
148:watch
144:links
60:Spark
16:<
828:talk
807:Keep
798:talk
756:talk
718:talk
661:talk
640:talk
591:talk
570:talk
562:does
552:talk
497:and
482:Keep
473:talk
408:talk
273:talk
259:talk
241:talk
213:FENS
187:news
152:logs
126:talk
122:edit
809:or
696:DGG
682:ink
538:7)
484:or
351:. –
316:. –
227:TWL
160:– (
830:)
800:)
758:)
720:)
703:)
663:)
642:)
593:)
572:)
554:)
475:)
446:)
443:c̄
432:03
410:)
391:03
374:)
371:c̄
360:03
339:)
336:c̄
325:03
304:)
301:c̄
290:03
207:)
164:|
154:|
150:|
146:|
142:|
137:|
133:|
128:|
124:|
845::
841:@
826:(
796:(
754:(
716:(
699:(
659:(
638:(
589:(
568:(
550:(
471:(
438:d
435:(
421::
417:@
406:(
366:d
363:(
331:d
328:(
296:d
293:(
276:·
271:(
262:·
257:(
244:·
239:(
231:)
223:·
217:·
209:·
202:·
196:·
190:·
184:·
179:(
171:(
168:)
158:)
120:(
105:)
101:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.