Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenPsych


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  10:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

OpenPsych

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article about the editor of this journal has been deemed non-notable in a AfD before: Articles for deletion/Emil Kirkegaard.

I don't see independent notability for this journal. All the sources relate to controversies related to the people who wrote in this journal. The Noah Carl controversy is covered, well, at Noah Carl, and the London Conference on Intelligence article exists as well (the SPLC source relates to this). The only independent thing here is the OKCupid controversy, which was covered in the Emil Kirkegaard article as well that was AfD'd. I suspect that this was created by a sockpuppet, although it's not confirmed yet, still FYI. Pudeo (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Pudeo (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge The journal itself does not seem independently notable, but only through the controversies. I think that they could be merged into the respective articles. Taewangkorea (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep upon closer review, it seems that the article meets GNG. Taewangkorea (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, no suitable redirects exist. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually Keep, upon review, this does meet WP:GNG. Kirkegaard et al can be redirected here if needed. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as the article does meet WP:GNG.Knox490 (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the creator has now been blocked as a suspected sockpupppet. But perhaps this does not qualify for WP:G5 after some fixes by, so notability considered. I would note that half of the sources have beem written by the same journalist in three different publications, some of which are less weightier like student newspapet Cherwell amd London Student. --Pudeo (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: the current version has several acceptable sources for relevant statements. A Wikipedia article is just the right place where to keep such information on a controversial (pseudo)journal. Nemo 06:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are these several student newspapers reliable sources? Do they have reputations for fact-checking and accuracy and do they offer something other publications do not? Without those sources, the article becomes quite anemic. czar  00:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What student newspapers? At a glimpse I only see two such citations. Most of the citations seem to go to a New Statesman author. Nemo 07:34, 11 August 2019 (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.