Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PsychAlive

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. JGHowes ^talk 03:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PsychAlive

[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)

Defunct website with very poor references. Doesnt appear to be notable, but the Glendon Association, which seems to be behind it still exists, and might possibly be notable, though most of the online references seem to be written by Dr. Lisa Firestone, who is part of it. Rathfelder (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft delete. Relisting in hopes firmer consensus for delete can be established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Dearth of quality, independent sources, issues outstanding since 2010 apparently. Independent search (admittedly a quick one) did not yield any either. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I did find a few peer reviewed journal articles that cite papers from PsychAlive and I did find several doctoral theses that do as well. Given its use in academia I would have been inclined towards keep if there had been even one good independent reference on the website. However, I didn't find any RS on the website itself.4meter4 (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This subject does not rise to the level of encyclopedic coverage. bd2412 T 20:22, 9 November 2019 (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.