Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Try Stress Management

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. Sadads (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try Stress Management

[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)

Clearly promotional, with none of the sources given being both in-depth and reliable. Tagged for G11 by multiple editors but repeatedly declined by the same IP user. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Websites. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not promotional. Please review. The page clearly abstain itself from referring to the website in the links. It’s only mentioned one time as a reference. :The other references are reliable. Some of them come from a published paper in a reputable journal. As well, as Feedspot. In what way is this different from Psych Central or Psychology Today Please delete those as well then! 12.40.131.195 (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I just requested deletion of Psych Central. You will see it won’t get deleted because it does not make sense. The page Try Stress Management is similar to the Psych Central and Psychology Today page. Be reasonable and review appropriately. 12.40.131.195 (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Psych Central has 41 references. Psychology Today has 14 references. This article has two references, neither one of which is of any use in establishing the notability of this blog. Cullen328 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not promotional at all. The tone it is written in is purely factual. Only 1 link referencing to the webpage. The rest are valid sources. It’s a resource just like the one mentioned above that were never marked for deletion. I just checked myself [[Psych Central]] was unmarked from deletion. Be fair. And if you believe this page is promotional, do you fair diligence and mark for deletion [[Psych Central]] then. Helpfulpsych (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regarding the references given, they are all either non-reliable blogs or make only passing mention of the subject, which does not establish notability. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~How is an academic journal not notable for you? You need to fact check properly. Helpfulpsych (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
    - That is a single article in a newly launched online-only journal, not affiliated with an educational institution. It's registered to a corporate services address in Wilmington DE (see company address and [1], [2] [3] [4] for just a few other non-publishing companies at the same address). CIted once.
      Of course, none of this matters if the paper doesn't discuss the article subject. Which it doesn't by my reading. With zero reliable sources on a nakedly promotional article, and hallmarks of an article created under a conflict of interest, this article is a clear delete Oblivy (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Most academic journals are for profit and not affiliated to educational institutions. Most open access journal are online. Please share legit information. These are not arguments. No conflict of interest here. Just hate to see one of my contributions being deleted when I spent time to write it. Helpfulpsych (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Even assuming this was a journal with a reputation for independence and academic rigor, can you point to the part of the article that discusses the topic of this Wikipedia article? Oblivy (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I side with keep 12.40.131.195 (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It is a clear !keep by reading the wiki and the references. 12.40.131.195 (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB and WP:NRV. Notability doesn't appear to be evident from the references and I can't find any news articles about this blog. I also saw the rejected deletion request at Psych Central—comparing them is a bit odd considering Psych Central was named one of the 50 Best Websites in 2008 by Time and mentioned multiple times by The New York Times, according to their verifiable references here and here. Limmidy (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most importantly, it doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Simply not enough in-depth sourcing from independent, realiable sources.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete I requested a speedy deletion because I wanted a second set of eyes, but the new editor clearly doesn't understand the scope of the wikis, Sadads (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, unremarkable blog fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG. Couldn't find WP:SIGCOV in an online search. Wikishovel (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I saw pages less notable with way less credibility on here. I went and looked at the sources, it’s true that they do not go in depth, but they do make mention. Also the blog is legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.188.36.11 (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, with three additional points. First, in 2024, everyone knows what Wikipedia is and has at least a vague idea of what it is not, so claiming not to know that is untenable. Second, this is a fork of stress management. Finally, the only reliable and independent source doesn’t even mention this blog. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - took some time to read through the article and check source. I disagree with above. It’s still relevant. And it’s not a fork of any other article here. It’s legit and deserve to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.169.54 (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the references is feedspot and this is legit. They don’t give out top 50 blogs to anyone out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.195.128.138 (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:SIGCOV and I saw IPs canvassing in the discussion. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The article doesn't even have 3 sources, not to mention a top 50 is not WP:SIGCOV. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references to multiple reliable sources independent of this blog and devoting significant coverage to this blog are added to the article. An entry in a "top 50" list in a blog about blogs is worthless for establishing notability. The closing administrator will disregard all comments that are not based on policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. As it's clearly not notable, practically none of the sources are good for even the general notability guideline. However, once it gets deleted, someone will likely try to recreate it, so I'd encourage an admin to salt it, just in case. OhHaiMark (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Not notable whatsoever. Procyon117 (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per above and it fails WP:SIGCOV

Wiiformii (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2024 (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.