Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Databases for psychologists


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Databases for psychologists

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

loosely defined; it's not the same as a List of psychology bibliographic databases. Fgnievinski (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wow, this has been around for a long time considering that it's basically useless, has hardly any incoming links, and has never been substantially edited other than drive-by cleanup and tagging. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: yes, the base Category:Psychology would benefit from a clean-up... Fgnievinski (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Question: should we just create a category of "Psychology Databases" for all the blue links? That seems to be the main purpose of this page in any case. —  Noah
 * Delete per nom. Many of the entries in this list wouldn't belong in a category "psychology databases", as they are much broader than psychology. --Randykitty (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Close to half the entries are red links anyway and several others aren't primarily psych databases. Pubmed for example while it has lots of good psych articles is not just for psychology. Also, according to Notability: "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" which I don't think applies to this list. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2015 (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.