Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psycho-Babble (virtual community)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 00:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psycho-Babble (virtual community)

WP:WEB, Notability, Promotion

Comments

  • Delete Limited number of sites linking to this site (121 sites link to this one), notability, WP:WEB as nom -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 11:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 17:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promotional. Article was created in response to promotion on the Web forum it describes [1], "as a matter of pride" per the writer who started the article [2]. The forum owner then advocated creation of this article [3], and suggested he could use it as a hand-out at one of his many professional presentations in which he promotes his model of on-line mental-health-care delivery [4]. Forum members allude to one recent reference to their forum in the New York Times, but otherwise, most published references and public presentations about this forum have been authored or led by the forum owner. The psychiatrist who owns the forum has reverted numerous edits [5], including edits that expose the declining usage of his forum [6]. While obfuscating actual usage data [7] the forum owner has entered erroneous information in the article [8], has responded on the talk page demanding a reference to a statement he forgot or refused to acknowledge from his own promotional writing about his site in a professional journal [9] and has complained about criticisms that characterize his editorial involvement as vanity editing [10]. A member of the forum also entered false information [11] and blanked most of the article when it didn't suit his preferences[12][13] [14][15][16][17][18]. Excluding Google hits that link to the researcher's vast archives of his forum members' posts, few other sites link to this forum. Some therapists discourage their clients from visiting Robert Hsiung's forums [19]; perhaps a therapist's couch -- not Wikipedia -- is the appropriate place to discuss the merits of this forum. This article demonstrates the difficulty of trying to maintain an open-source encylopedic article about Internet forums where members can persistently mobilize to effect content of the article about their forum. Though most of the content was contributed by forum members and by the psychiatrist who owns the forum, a member of the forum continues to argue here against independent edits, claiming contributions from independent editors dominate the article. Regular Wikipedia editors have better things to do than persistently reviewing, mediating and arbitrating controversies that inevitably arise from promotional efforts such as this article. I have better things to do than trying to balance promotional articles about a psychiatrist's experimental on-line therapeutic models. Please delete. ProveReader 20:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow... Delete per WP:WEB and ProveReader's research. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 22:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per ProveReader's excellent reasoning, not worth keeping free of POV. --Malthusian (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this article as it reeks of being a promotional for the site's content.--asydwaters 15:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

(talk)

  • Delete I know more about Psycho-Babble owned by Robert Hsiung AKA Dr.Bob,I see the article as an attempt by the doctor to promote his site, but the article leaves out much about the site that ProveReader has written here. Emmis 20:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)emmis
  • Keep. Seems notable, if the following is correct:

Over a half-million posts by people using approximately 10,000 registered screen names have been archived at Psycho-Babble. Alexa Internet in December 2005 ranked Psycho-Babble as the second most-visited mental health Web site. Alexa Internet showed the dr-bob.org sites as among top 15,000 most-visited sites in January 2004 and in December 2005 as among the top 90,000.

Indeed, it appears that the site [20] remains the 2nd most visited mental health site. We unfortunately cannot delete articles when editors behave immaturely. The wikipedia process is such that we believe such problems can be solved by other means. Sdedeo (tips) 21:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment The content you cite was contributed by a member of the forum the article describes[21], but it is not correct. Compare the citation you linked ostensibly verifying the forum as the second most-popular mental health site with the actual Alexa pages for most popular mental health sites [22] and for the top 10 mental health self-help sites [23]. Psycho-Babble is not among the top 10 mental-health self-help support groups [24], nor among the top 10 support groups [25]. The category among which Psycho-Babble was ranked second includes only 20 other sites [26]. Ranked among the broader group of 53 mental-health support groups that include "stress" the forum falls to third[27]. Among 401 listed health support groups, Psycho-Babble ranks 8th, but with an overall traffic rank of 86,486th, it falls far behind the leader, which is the National Institute for Diabetes and Kidney Disease site, which is not the topic of a Wikipedia article. The site is not ranked along with self-help groups, or self-help support groups, perhaps because it is administered by a medical doctor. The top mental health self-help support group outranks dr-bob.org/babble 11,406:86,486, and outranks by 11,406:24,164 the top site in the category of 20 sites in which dr-bob.org/babble ranks second. I suspect none of the more notable mental health, self-help or support sites listed by Alexa is the topic of a Wikipedia article.
I'll again correct the article to reflect the fact that the site is second among a narrow group of 20 sites, but my continued concern for the article's accuracy does not temper my strong vote for its deletion. The most popular mental health sites are associated with well-known organizations, such as that of the American Psychological Association. The 10th most popular mental health site, with a rank of 27,689, far outranks Psycho-Babble, today at 86,486th. A member of Robert Hsiung's forum selected its standing in a subset that comprises less than 1 percent of the sites listed in Alexa's mental health category and represented it as among the most visited of all mental health sites. Unless Wikipedia plans to include non-vanity, NPOV articles about the 100,000 most visited Web sites that use the Alexa toolbar, Psycho-Babble fails to rise to a level of notability except among a minor category in which many similar sites do not seek to be listed. Second among 20 hardly comprises notability, though inclusion of the claim to suggest second-among-5710 offers notable evidence of promotional editing contrary to facts. ProveReader 23:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thanks for clarifying that, ProveReader. I was working, from memory, from an older version of WP:WEB; the criteria have become stricter (a good thing, IMO.) Thanks also for pointing out the selective nature of that linked alexa ranking; going to the "top in all mental health" list [28], I can't even find it listed in the top fifty. Sdedeo (tips) 01:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could I present my point of view? I think Psycho-Babble is notable. Not the #1 site on the web, but notable. I'm not sure how to make a case for that without running the risk of sounding promotional, but here are a few thoughts.
    • There aren't many online communities that have been sustained for 7 years and grown to 17,000 members and 600,000 posts. I think that's noteworthy. Especially, perhaps, given its mission of peer support and education in mental health.
    • I think rankings also make it clear that it's not a typical message board. As mentioned before, it's ranked #8 of 401 (in the top 2%) in the Health > Support Groups category by Alexa [29]. It's also ranked #4 of about 2,500,000 when you Google effexor xr (an antidepressant medication) [30] and #1 of about 116,000 when you Google therapist self-disclosure (an issue in psychotherapy) [31]. It's not Wikipedia  :-) but I think that breadth of information is notable, too.
    • I'm biased in favor of the site, but others are biased against it. For example, see that blog that ProveReader repeatedly links to [32]. And judge for yourself, from the history, whether the edits I've made have had more positive spin or hers have had more negative. If it would be helpful, I'd be happy to respond to her comments one by one. But I'm not here to make accusations, just to ask you try to be neutral and to consider both sides. Dr. Bob 11:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment More statistics: Google Groups search for - support groups: 4,380,000 results [33] - health support groups: 597,000 results [34] - mental health support groups: 124,000 results [35]; Alexa search for health support groups in Health directory: 222,515 results [36], Alexa Health Directory search for AOL support groups: 2,514 results [37], Alexa Health Directory search for AOL mental health support groups: 1,850 results [38] Alexa health directory search for Yahoo support groups: 1,589 results [39], Health Support Groups listed at Yahoo Groups: 30,107 [40], Groups discussing specific mental health disorders listed at Yahoo Groups: 2,508 [41]. Only those sites whose administrators register for traffic monitoring as health support groups are included among the 401 Alexa-ranked health-support-groups category, which does not include many similar support groups specifically listed for Alexa ranking [42][43]. Total registered screen names is neither a measure of active membership, nor a reliable basis for comparison with similar sites. His forum members often acknowledge registering new screen names. At least 2,430 of the registered screen names may have never posted, and another 2,953 have not posted since he implemented an informed consent procedure in 2001. [44]. The availability of archives effects search engine results. AOL and Yahoo have long hosted many non-archived support groups. Usenet, established 26 years ago, is home to numerous long-standing on-line support communities. Dr. Hsiung is not recognized as a published expert in on-line support group history. A recognized author for the University College London Center for Health Informatics says on-line support groups have at least a 24-year history, lists some non-qualititive support group directories and says directory placement is an incomplete, user-defined means of ranking groups [45]. We have no data to show that few on-line communities are as old as dr-bob.org/babble, but plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest otherwise. ProveReader 18:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and ProveReader. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Dr. Bob's proof that his site is of major importance is faulty. This university professor is cooking his data for personal gain. User:Fredthewise
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.