Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of psychology

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. postdlf (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of psychology[edit]

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

Completely no rhyme or reason for this list. Just a random list of books and persons that editors think are relevant to psychology for various POV reasons. Not encyclopedic. TimL • talk 17:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be no rhyme or reason to this nomination as the nature of the article in question seems quite obvious. Rather than being arbitrary, this presents significant developments in psychology in chronological order. Other third-parties have done this too - see the BPS' timeline for example. The topic and its presentation are therefore notable and the rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Psychology certainly has a history, and a timeline article is an encyclopedic way of organizing that history. Most of he entries are found in any of the standard historical accounts of psychology. Edison (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with Warden that the history of psychology is highly notable and in particular timelines exist in the sources. I'll also note that this article is a perfectly fine list-based article, per WP:LIST#List articles, a timeline with almost all entries linked to one or more WP articles. A highly notable topic, sources to draw from and a well-formed article all point to unambiguously keeping this article. --Mark viking (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It appears to serve as a complement to the History of psychology article and is decently sourced. Timelines have their own standards (WP:TIMELINE) so they seem to be accepted as encyclopedic here. If there are concerns with specific entries, those can be discussed on the article's talk page. Praemonitus (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2013 (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.