Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weaponized incompetence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weaponized incompetence

[edit]

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

Weaponized incompetence (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)

No citations to reputable sources in psychiatry or psychology. Entirely based on popular culture and tabloid references, with little-to-no evidence backing them. –Sincerely, A Lime 23:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not voting one way or another but I did find a psychology today article that was reviewed by their staff which I'm assuming includes psychologists. https://www.psychologytoday.com/nz/basics/weaponized-incompetence 2406:5A00:CC09:4F00:FCC7:FA9E:340B:67DD (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the sources as currently numbered:
1. HuffPost. That bloggy opinion piece is not news. Its author does not claim to be any kind of psychology expert, nor does she actually say this is part of psychology. She talks about the term's use in TikTok videos. She does refer to weaponized incompetence once as a "pop psychology idea" but in a conversational way that does not suggest invocation of actual psychology.
2. The Wall Street Journal piece is hidden by a pay wall, but the visible part of the article, several checks of it through multiple search engines, and other people's articles about that article do not indicate that it indicated that it is a psychological concept. The more reliable references indicate that it coined the term strategic incompetence. Again that does not make it a psychological term (not even pop psych) or anything more than one person's musing.
3. The Guardian. This is essentially just an opinion piece about the Wall Street Journal article, and it does not call the term psychological.
4. The Bustle. This is about the random people talking on TikTok. They do ask for reaction from one therapist/author with a Master's. The therapist is not really claiming it to be a psychological concept or part of popular psychology but, rather, is sharing thoughts about the term that the article's author has asked her about. Not a terrible source.
5. Cosmopolitan. It's Cosmo. Psychology is mentioned. It pulls its content from the same WSJ article and TikTok videos.
6. Glam. Cosmo is more reliable and valid than Glamour. They interviewed a relationship coach, not a psych pro. They quoted a therapist who had provided a single quote to PopSugar, not even a full sentence. That therapist did not suggest that she was talking about a valid psych concept. She gave a passing thought regarding an idea PopSugar asked about.
7. Fortune. I paid the dollar to read this one. They interviewed an economics professor/book co-author and a CEO. They did not in any way indicate that it is part of psychology/psychiatry, and neither did the article.
8. USA Today. Article does not indicate it comes from psychology.
9. Psychology Today. See above. It's just a blog post. I have written 140 Psych Today blog posts. They give us a lot of freedom in what we say there. One of my pieces was speculation about whether the villain Poison Ivy's superpowers could be pheromone-based.
10. Glamour UK. The writer is blogging some thoughts without sources except for one TikTok link.
11. AskMen. Not a great source. Talks about TikTok, but this time the author did get a thought from one LMFT. The therapist shared thoughts on the implications of weaponized incompetence but without in any way suggesting that it is an accepted concept in the field. The writer is a business consultant.
12. GQ. Blog musings. Someone on TikTok asked a question, so the writer offers first-person thoughts on the topic without connecting it to psychology. The writer is a journalist and poet, not in psychology or any related field.
13. Salon. The author blogs some thoughts. A relationship coach is quoted, but it should be noted that those who call themselves relationship coaches or life coaches almost always do so because they are not therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, or anyone with the psych credentials. The article does not mention psychology.
14. New York Times. NYT is a great source. The article does not say it's a psych term.
15. The Good Men Project. This is just a blogger thinking about the topic without sources and without mentioning psych. Also, this is a reprint from somewhere else. The original should have been cited instead, which makes me wonder how carefully this was read by the editor who cited it.
16. Michigan Daily. Nothing new. Talking about the same TikTok ideas covered elsewhere. No psych is mentioned.
17. Digiday. Interesting blog post relating it to diversity issues. Nothing formal. No sources establishing this as anything more than a neologism.
18. Women. Its source is the HuffPost piece (item 1).
19. The Daily Dot. About the YouTube trend.
20. Refinery29. About the YouTube trend.
If editors feel Wikipedia should include an article about the YouTube "trend" of sharing thoughts about this neologism (see WP:NEO), that might be fine. However, this article is about a supposed concept in psychology, but it fails to establish that it is said concept in psychology, not even pop psychology. Almost the entire article falls under the "In popular psychology" heading. Saying something is a concept in psychology when it is not can be a dangerous thing to do. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:NEXIST stresses, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not simply the article's current sourcing. So I logged into the American Psychological Association's PsycINFO database of abstracts from chapters, dissertations, and more than 2,500 journals in the field. As of this writing, not a single abstract in that database mentions weaponized incompetence or strategic incompetence. Neither does the PsycBOOKS database. Neither does the PsycArticles database. Not one. These terms are not part of psychology.
Of course, the article says popular psychology, not psychology, but (1) most people do not understand that distinction, (2) the sources cited in the Wikipedia article do not say the concept is part of popular psychology either, and (3) my credentials include authoring and editing 16 Popular Culture Psychology books. The article may have enough good sources in there to discuss this if framed very differently, but not as part of popular psychology. I'm not sure that one brief spattering of TikTok videos sharing an idea that hearkens back to one older WSJ article really is something that merits its own article at this time. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Doczilla's thorough analysis. Sources are either trivial, non-reliable, or both. Treating this as an established concept in pop psychology is basically WP:SYNTH. If someone writes a book on it at some point, maybe we can have an article then. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Weaponized_incompetence&oldid=1241446139"