Talk:Decatastrophizing

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Decatastrophizing article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 25 July 2012 by reviewer SarahStierch (talk · contribs).

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it is notable. When you google the word 'decatastrophizing', there are many articles and videos about it, and there are many explanations of it in books by reputable sources. According to Google Adwords, 260 people search for this term a month. That might not sound like a lot of people, but the fact is, people do search for the term and are probably wanting a reliable explanation of it. As well, a related non-academic term, "what if thinking" has 33100 hits, and many of those articles use the word decatastrophizing when explaining it. Unfortunately, there are no places on the web where an indepth explanation of decatastrophizing is given, which means that people must wade through books, blogs and articles by possibly non-reputable sources to figure out what it means for themselves. If wikipedia is not the place for this type of definitions, then where is? --ShalonSims (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikipedia, the topic is notable because: 1) the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 2) there are many secondary sources by different authors covering the topic, and 3) the topic is not temporary.ShalonSims (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a new user, I'm confused about why this article was nominated for 'speedy' deletion. I've done some reading and here is what I found on [page]: "Speedy deletion is meant to remove pages that are so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that they have no chance of surviving a deletion discussion. Speedy deletion should not be used except in the most obvious cases. " (bolding mine). If someone would like to explain this to me, I'd appreciate it. --ShalonSims (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This simply does not appear to be a topic that is notable for inclusion by itself. It might be useful to cover it as a subset of another area but this article does not seem to be worth it for a standalone.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]