Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MRCPsych

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure and proposed page move instead) GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 23:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MRCPsych

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article describes following things:
a) a degree earned at a single institution
b) how many courses you must takes
c) exams details c. 2008 & 2015-onwards
d) syllabus for these courses/exams

Should be deleted per WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTBROCHURE. Thanks. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 19:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 19:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 19:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 19:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MRCPysch is actually a particularly notable qualification as it is the basic requirement for practicing psychiatry independently in the United Kingdom. I understand how you might think this is a single institution but in reality the royal college qualifications are training across every UK hospital. I think an explanation of a qualifying qualification to practice as a psychiatrist is both a useful and notable topic. See also Membership of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom Membership of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland and Membership of the Royal College of General Practitioners. This article needs substantial edits though. PainProf (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally there is scope for expansion as the curriculum is subject to substantial critical analysis due to its role in psychiatric training. Example Sources for expansion.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] PainProf (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have since improved the article by including further sources, and removing extraneous curricular details, focusing on the core of the qualification PainProf (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the article is in much better shape now. I'm also inclined to the suggestion by @Tom (LT): below about name change. Member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists could be the main name with MRCPsych could be a redirect link. What do you think? Let me know and I will withdraw the deletion nomination to proceed with page move. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 21:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan to me. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Tyrer, Stephen; Oyebode, Femi (March 2004). "Why does the MRCPsych examination need to change?". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 184 (3): 197–199. doi:10.1192/bjp.184.3.197. ISSN 0007-1250.
^ Burn, Wendy; Bowie, Peter (October 2015). "The Royal College of Psychiatrists' response". BJPsych Bulletin. 39 (5): 262–263. doi:10.1192/pb.39.5.262a. ISSN 2056-4694. PMC 4706197. PMID 26755977.
^ Benning, Tony; Broadhurst, Mark (December 2007). "The long case is dead – long live the long case: Loss of the MRCPsych long case and holism in psychiatry". Psychiatric Bulletin. 31 (12): 441–442. doi:10.1192/pb.bp.107.014951. ISSN 0955-6036.
^ Thompson, Catherine M. (April 2009). "Will the CASC stand the test? A review and critical evaluation of the new MRCPsych clinical examination †". Psychiatric Bulletin. 33 (4): 145–148. doi:10.1192/pb.bp.108.021881. ISSN 0955-6036.

Makes sense to me PainProf (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with PainProf. This is a notable national-level qualification and we have similar articles for other such qualifications. I think this article should however be renamed to Member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in line with other articles. The problem here is with the article's references, but this is not a reason for deletion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2020 (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.

[1] Tyrer, Stephen; Oyebode, Femi (March 2004). "Why does the MRCPsych examination need to change?". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 184 (3): 197–199. doi:10.1192/bjp.184.3.197. ISSN 0007-1250.

[2] Burn, Wendy; Bowie, Peter (October 2015). "The Royal College of Psychiatrists' response". BJPsych Bulletin. 39 (5): 262–263. doi:10.1192/pb.39.5.262a. ISSN 2056-4694. PMC 4706197. PMID 26755977.

[3] Benning, Tony; Broadhurst, Mark (December 2007). "The long case is dead – long live the long case: Loss of the MRCPsych long case and holism in psychiatry". Psychiatric Bulletin. 31 (12): 441–442. doi:10.1192/pb.bp.107.014951. ISSN 0955-6036.

[4] Thompson, Catherine M. (April 2009). "Will the CASC stand the test? A review and critical evaluation of the new MRCPsych clinical examination †". Psychiatric Bulletin. 33 (4): 145–148. doi:10.1192/pb.bp.108.021881. ISSN 0955-6036.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]