Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psych Central (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psych Central

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It seems to me this article had already been deleted before. It has since been recreated, heavily edited by a single user which has been blocked in the meantime. Notability and objectivity of the article are doubtful, self-promotion is obvious. Midas02 (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As to whether or not the article has been previously deleted, this can be determined by looking at the previous AfD, which shows that the article was speedy-deleted for copyvio. This can be verified in the deletion log, link. I looked at the Time (link) article and skimmed the article and the references, and I didn't see the self-promotion problem. Whether founded in 1991 or 1997, it has been around for an Internet eternity and gets attention from various sources over time. Nomination doesn't argue that the topic is not notable. The only issue seems to be G5 speedy deletion. I looked at the history of the primary content contributor, and it is a confusing history in which there is no record available to support the block log, and in particular the SPI archive has nothing relevant. The template on the User page was applied by another editor also implicated as an associated sock. Is the seemingly random use of the word "suicide" self-referential? If the G5 speedy delete argument is applicable, the references and categories should be harvested so that the article can be easily re-created. Unscintillating (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't agree with the nom's assertions. As far as the objectivity of the article's claims, this isn't merely a heavily cited article, it's cited to the point of absurdity. As far as the article being promotional, I'm looking at a bunch of statements of fact, not of puffed-up claims, and the only two cheerleading statements are cited. Beyond that, an article containing a cited criticism of the subject can't really be claimed to be unrelentingly promotional. Insinuating that the creator of the article was a SPA is absurd; he made 1,117 edits to Wikipedia before his block, only 47 of which was to this article.[1]. As far as its notability? Well, quite aside from that Time magazine article naming it one of the 50 best websites on the whole Internet (along with similar kudos from such varied and reliable sources such as the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Star-Ledger, the Irish Times and the Los Angeles Times), there are 41 different citations, most of them to notable and independent print sources. Did the nom take the slightest stab at WP:BEFORE, as deletion policy requires, and actually check on some of them? This looks more like an IDON'TLIKEIT nomination than anything else; Ravenswing 17:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There were many problems surrounding the early stages of this article. I whittled away a large part of it. I disliked the article, but that dislike came from the ordeal that it occasioned to get it where it is now. As much as I felt that way, I couldn't come up with sufficient reason to justify outright deletion, because despite the earlier abundance of citations of useless sources, there's still sufficient good documentation out there demonstrating the site's notability. I can't see that that's changed. As far as the original deletion discussion, that became moot before it was over, so no conclusion can be drawn from it. The speedy deletion was for copyright reasons, and so provides no basis for deleting now. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A top 50 internet site is notable. --do ncr am 17:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.