Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop culture pathology

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, per WP:SNOW. bd2412 T 17:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture pathology

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article does not have proper sources, and a Google search turns up nothing related at all. There is a very good chance that this is a hoax, but even if it isn't, without proper verification, the article cannot be allowed here. See WP:V for the verification policy, and WP:HOAX for information about what we think of hoaxes. Thank you. NightlyHelper (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G3. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per WP:G3 as a hoax. Looking for the "Botto Experiment" turns up nothing except this article. It may also be of note that the article creator worked on nothing else. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I tagged this as a pretty certain hoax not long ago. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G3. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This is without question a hoax. There is an utter lack of any sources corroborating a single piece of information here, and the description of the supposed experiment is completely ludicrous. Rorshacma (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned the main creator of the article for creating hoaxes, as the community consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of "this is a hoax". NightlyHelper (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example of an IP making well-intentioned but misplaced edits raising a concern about verifiability in this article years ago, only to be reverted as a vandal. (I have seen this with other hoax articles, but I can't remember which ones right now.) So there has been at least some suspicion surrounding the accuracy of this article for almost 7 years. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a serious article. without proper sources, I believe it’s a hoax. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 00:11, 30 September 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.