Deletion of Psych Central (2nd nomination)

Comment: I don't agree with the nom's assertions.  As far as the objectivity of the article's claims, this isn't merely a heavily cited article, it's cited to the point of absurdity.  As far as the article being promotional, I'm looking at a bunch of statements of fact, not of puffed-up claims, and the only two cheerleading statements are cited.  Beyond that, an article containing a cited criticism of the subject can't really be claimed to be unrelentingly promotional.  Insinuating that the creator of the article was a SPA is absurd; he made 1,117 edits to Wikipedia before his block, only 47 of which was to this article.https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ec/?user=Igottheconch&project=en.wikipedia.org.  As far as its notability?  Well, quite aside from that ''Time'' magazine article naming it one of the 50 best websites on the whole Internet (along with similar kudos from such varied and reliable sources such as the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Star-Ledger, the Irish Times and the Los Angeles Times), there are 41 different citations, most of them to notable and independent print sources.  Did the nom take the slightest stab at , as deletion policy requires, and actually check on some of them?  This looks more like an |IDON'TLIKEIT nomination than anything else
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)