Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology


 * 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 d e lete. east. 718 at 22:10, 11/6/2007

International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article deleted through ProD, but contested afterwards through email. Original ProD reason (not by me) was "Lacks any independent secondary sources to establish notability; fails WP:ORG.". It seems indeed to be an organisation which is promoted heavily by a small number of people, but which lacks a more general notability in its field. Fram 07:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep weak keep Produces a significant journal, published by Springer, a very important highly reputable academic publisher. This is an indication of significant status. The journal the produced was published only from 1999 to 2003. t DGG (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Where do you get the dates from, DGG? Both Medline & NLM catalogue seem to think it's still ongoing, and Springer link to ToCs from 2007 . It seems to have changed its name from Ethical Human Sciences and Services in 2004. Espresso Addict 15:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Lacks secondary sources, fails WP:ORG. Publishing a journal is great, but without independent secondary sources it's impossible to say anything enyclopedic here. MastCell Talk 18:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The importance of the journal would be indicated by it being from a major publisher. But on the other hand it is held by only 25 US & Canadian research libraries. changed to weak keep.DGG (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per MastCell. Insufficient sources. Doctorfluffy 06:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Same as DGG's logic. Mbisanz 02:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Citi Cat   ♫  04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: WikiProject Psychology has been informed of this discussion. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 10:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete MastCell hit the nail on the head with his comments. We need secondary sources.  If these are added, someone let me know, and I'll change to "Keep".  I am wondering if there are any reliable secondary sources though... Chupper 13:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep A quick google search brought up 208,000 results, this does not make it notable in and of itself, but according to WP:ORG A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. these should     153.90.88.9 01:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, WP:ORG requires non-trivial coverage in independent sources. Three of those 4 sources have a fairly trivial level of coverage (i.e. little more than mention of the organization's name), and the other is from a book authored by Peter Breggin, who is the founder of the organization and thus hardly independent. MastCell Talk 05:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per MastCell unless someone adds appropriate independent sources confirming notability before this AfD ends. Doczilla 20:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy keep: An appropriate notification of listing by nominators would have been appreciated.  The roster of luminaries that participated in the recent ICSPP conference should more than suffice to demonstrate the noteworthiness of the journal.  Ombudsman 21:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As you frequently advocate a "speedy keep" closure of AfD's, would it be too much to ask that you review the speedy keep criteria and explain which of them are applicable here? As to notification, the AfD may have opened while you were blocked by Jimbo Wales, which may explain the lack of notification. MastCell Talk 21:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not sufficiently indicated (e.g. in which way the FDA has been lobbied). Content can be merged with Peter Breggin if necessary. JFW | T@lk  23:11, 3 November 2007 (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.