Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Division of Clinical Neuropsychology

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 merge to Divisions of the American Psychological Association. v/r - TP 18:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Division of Clinical Neuropsychology

Division of Clinical Neuropsychology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

DePRODed without addressing the notability issues (unreferenced, no reliable sources). As a small division (only 4,000 members) of a larger organisation , it does not credibly assert notability for a stand-alone article. May be possible to merge it to the parent article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete (changing to Redirect, see below) This is merely one division (out of 40 56 according to this) of the American Psychological Association, and there is nothing to suggest it is particularly notable. I would oppose a merge because none of the other divisions have coverage or even a mention at the parent article; no reason why this should be the only one. Anyhow, there is no verified information to merge, since the article contains no sources. I would oppose a redirect because the name is so generic. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. When the WP:SPA creator removed the PROD, they claimed that three other divisions of the APA have Wikipedia articles. We might want to locate those articles (I was unable to in a brief search) and consider their notability as well. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Do not delete Information has been added to the article with reliable references from sources not affiliated with APA or the Division of Clinical Neuropsychology, to address one of the comments made by Kudpung, above. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Uspring76 — 152.131.10.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The references do not appear to address notability issues. Are they strictly about, and dedicated to the history, work, andimportance of this small academic division, and are they the required kind of WP:RS? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Do not delete Clinical Neuropsychology is a major specialty within the field of psychology (in clinical, research and training contexts), and this organization is central in establishing standards and policies for this specialty. Although the importance was not necessarily highlighted in the previous version, I believe the new additions to the wiki reflect this now.152.131.10.133 (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Pacific03062006

Clinical neuropsychology already has an article here and is unchallenged. This discussion is about a division of the APA, and about whether it meets the notability requirements for an organization. --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Not asserting notability of clinical neuropsychology, but the important role of this organization in this field as supported by the numerous independent books and journal articles cited here about this organization's work and influence. Pacific03062006 (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Pacific03062006

BTW I'm striking out your second "do not delete" - you can comment as much as you like, but you only get to "vote" once (meaning a boldfaced "keep" or "delete" or whatever). --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not USpring76, so removed the strikeout. Pacific03062006 (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Pacific03062006

"USpring76" and the "Pacific" user represent two different accounts, each held by a different user (despite the same IP address showing in the username/timestamp). I have not double-voted. Uspring76 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Uspring76

• Keep  Ordinary article that meets out WP:N/WP:GNG guideline, a verifiable topic that we want to cover.  Given our WP:ATD alternatives for deletion policy, we would delete neither the edit history nor the redirect.  If someone wants to merge the four division articles, they should do so, I think they'll find that the encyclopedia is better factored as four articles, but these topics might fit together reasonably.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Merge or Rename I would merge any and all division articles with the main APA article. They do not warrant separate articles otherwise you open the floodgates to all 56 divisions. Additionally, the current title of this particular article is not sufficiently explanatory. It would need changed to APA Division of Clinical Neuropsychology to meet WP:PRECISION. Famous_dog (c) 13:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm changing my opinion to Merge/Redirect because I found the perfect target: Divisions of the American Psychological Association. There is room there for a sentence or two about each of the individual divisions, without overwhelming the American Psychological Association page. I also found three other articles about APA divisions, Society for Personality and Social Psychology, American Psychology–Law Society, and Society of Consulting Psychology, and I think they are excellent candidates for a merge as well. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Psychology is comprised of many facets and each division within APA is important in its own right and has contributed significantly to the field of psychology. Division 40, in particular, has set the standards for practice, education, training, research, and the advancement of neuropsychology in the public interest. Give its integral role in the development of the discipline, it merits its own article.

RUswell (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)RUswell — RUswell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As per WP:N, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below."  Please see the nutshell of WP:N, that states, "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Merge to Divisions of the American Psychological Association per MelanieN, appropriate for articles of this size.  Sandstein  05:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Merge to Divisions of the American Psychological Association. I went through the references in the article that I could view in Google Books, and all the mentions of the division that I found were only a sentence or two; not the significant coverage that WP:ORG requires. I had a search for other sources on Google Books as well, and much the same picture emerged: the society is only mentioned in passing, usually in conjunction with the rise of clinical neuropsychology as a discipline. Divisions of the American Psychological Association looks like the most sensible target for the redirect, but I think it would also be a good idea to merge some of this to clinical neuropsychology, as that is how it's usually mentioned in the sources that I saw. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

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.