Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psych Central


 * 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 Speedy deleted by  as copyright infringement. (non-admin closure) Jinkinson   talk to me  16:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Psych Central

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability of websites. Of the references given, one is to a paper written by Grohol, one is to the site itself, one merely gives Psych Central as the source of some info it's giving, and one is a Page Not Found. Myself, I found just two vaguely substantive mentions of it, one about a business deal they were involved in, the other by a blog's "admin" (author unidentified) recommending the site to readers. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The page not found was because it was removed by the anon. Why did you forgot the book?: "It is an award winning site created in 1997."Igottheconch (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was and am still able to view the book quite well. In fact a second check of the body reveals that the chapter in which Psych Central is mentioned is written by John Grohol, Psych Central's founder. This means that it cannot be used as a source to establish notability because it is a primary source. EagerToddler39 (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The page not found was because it was strangely removed by the anon, a minute before you created this AFD. Why did you forgot the book?: "It is an award winning site created in 1997." BEfore you put this article up for deletion, did you check the link above this AFD?  books · scholar · JSTOR --  The AFD template mentions ] 2,360 books which mention this organization, 1050 scholarly references, and 3 JSTOR references.  I want to assume WP:Good Faith please lets close this AFD. Igottheconch  (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not establish notability within the article by citing a few of those 3413 sources. I've encouraged you to improve the article and I'm still doing so. As it stands the social network is not notable based on what's contained in the article. If you wish to establish that it is notable then please locate the sources and cite them in the body of the article. Insert footnotes and expand the content. EagerToddler39 (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors please note the pending WP:ANI about these two editors.
 * I have shown without a doubt that this organization is notable, just as I did with Tom Wootton and 500+ sources. We have THOUSANDS of sources that quote Psych Central, and yet you will not close that AFD, or change your vote.
 * WP:BEFORE: "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources...The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform. This was never done.
 * WP:AFD: "You can search out reliable sources, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy"
 * Igottheconch (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Google results do not mean instant notability. Your claim that Google Scholar yields 1,050 results is nice, but when you add the -site:psychcentral.com parameter, that result drops to about 240. A lot of the book and scholar hits I checked out mention Psych Central in a citation; they aren't about Psych Central itself.  Ish dar  ian  09:45, 14 January 2014 (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.