Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chairs of the Psychonomic Society


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Chairs of the Psychonomic Society

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Why? List without a purpose. Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:NLIST. No independent sources discussing in-depth the chairs of the psychonomic society. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Psychology. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reason for this to exist. If it were shorter, we could merge it back into the main page on the Psychonomic Society itself, but I don't think it would really add much to that article either. PianoDan (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, per above. Femke (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete haha, non notable list of non notable people. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 07:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:PianoDan above. I've added a single sentence to the main article's history section about the two chairs who are notable enough for articles: . That oughta do it for now, and further notable chairs can be added to the end of that sentence. Storchy (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete It definitely fails the first two selection criteria. The third criteria IMO also is failed: it needs Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, Listed buildings in Rivington, but in this case, there's a single non-indepedent ref, I don't see any value for this for navigation. So I think delete. VickKiang (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete An inconsequential list of no interest to anybody other than those on the list. There is more general interest in the Upper Tocumwal Ladies Auxiliary knitting circle. Probably know more about psychology too.--Sanjam da prdnem na tebe (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @RsjaffeAgreewith delete,, I don't think this meets GNG. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.