Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tech abuse clinic


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  14:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Tech abuse clinic

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

The article depends on two sources, one of which is a press release, and the other of which is a short article on the clinic at Cornell. It has been tagged for several months as non-notable, and the creator suggested at the talk page that they might write an article themselves to be published and used as a source to establish notability. There are no new, independent secondary sources that would establish notability. Banks Irk (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychology and Technology.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  05:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  03:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  05:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough citations and references. The article is not notable enough.  killer bee    05:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * On the article talk page, the creator, while adding a ref from a connected source, acknowledged that there is a lack of secondary coverage. Banks Irk (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete I do not think there are enough articles covering tech abuse clinics in general. It would seem the article originated from this website which groups two of the three organisations: . For TECC, we have and, and for CETA we have , , and non-significant coverage at , . So at least two of these three orgs are independently notable, but the grouping in the article is not. Darcyisvery cute  (talk) 14:17, 25 December 2023 (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.