Talk:Self-perceived quality-of-life scale

Untitled
Do not delete: The page is not about a website. It is about an important psychological scale and the comprehensive theory of the Self-Perceived Quality of Life. A link is provided to a website which contains more information about the scale and the theory.

comment
It's about a program accessed through a web site, so As reviewing administrator, I did not delete it via speedy. However, you need to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. And, do not copy from a web site or previous publication, as seems to be the case here from the reference format. -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone with not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable. For further information see our FAQ about business, organisations, and articles like this. I advise you to improve this article very quickly, before the article gets deleted by a regular deletion process.  DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

response to comment
I added references from independent published reliable sources. It's not just about a program accessed through a web site. It is about an important psychological theory and about a scale which is based on this theory. The scale format is a program which could be accessed through a website. Does this suffice? Maybe title of the article should be edited to include the word Theory.

concerning sources
This article currently doesn't meet Wikipedia's sourcing rules -- scientific articles need to be verifiably derived from material published in reputable scientific journals. The sources for the SPQL are meeting presentations, a dissertation, and a web site -- none of these meet the requirements of WP:RS. It doesn't look to me like this article is going to be able to stand until a description of the scale is published in a proper journal. I understand how annoying that is after the work you've put in, but I'm afraid that's the way it is going to turn out. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * possible solution: a much briefer article, with some sources showing clearly that this scale is in fact accepted by others than its originator. Otherwise, I think it will  be nominated for deletion, and probably deleted.    DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I added a reference for a book about this scale published by an academic publisher and a reference to a clinical use of this scale for monitoring quality of life of women living with HIV. Ephraim C. Trakhtenberg, Ph.D. (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

response to comment
The book based on the dissertation is now in press. It is being published by an academic publisher, the VDM Publishing House http://www.vdm-publishing.com/index.php. It has already being published by ProQuest UMI Dissertation Publishing, which also involves peer-review and is considered a gold standard for validating dissertation research. Here is a link: http://gradworks.umi.com/33/05/3305319.html Also, I can include a link to the abstract for presentation at the American Psychological Association convention. For research to be accepted for presentation at the American Psychological Association convention, it has to be peer-reviewed and approved. So, the acceptance is usually considered as an award and acknowledgement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trakhtenberg (talk • contribs) 02:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Could someone with appropriate credentials please remove the tag which marks this article for deletion?
I added a reference for a book about this scale published by an academic publisher and a reference to a clinical use of this scale for monitoring quality of life of women living with HIV. I did not publish more academic works about this scale because I requalified from psychology to neurobiology. Present academic references and clinical use of the scale definitely establish sufficient notability. Could someone with appropriate credentials please remove the tag which marks this article for deletion? Ephraim C. Trakhtenberg, Ph.D. (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)