Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric Illness in General Practice

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. ✗plicit 11:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatric Illness in General Practice

[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)

A page for a a research study from 1970, with notability supported by only one independent source. Pubmed shows 243 citations (over the course of 55 years), which suggests that it is influential, but insufficient for stand-alone notability. Klbrain (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Psychiatry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual papers are seldom notable, and if so, there should be extensive secondary coverage (not just citations by other studies). Plus, the article is almost devoid of content, just a summary of the abstract. Until secondary sources are found, this fails WP:GNG. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure if this would qualify as SIGCOV but there is a short article on this in The Guardian which I found through newspapers.com. [1] Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The paper lacks sufficient coverage to be notable. MrTaxes (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2025 (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.