Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attitudinal healing
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 merge with A Course in Miracles – Gurch 12:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reason the page should be deleted
This article should be deleted based on WP:NOT Definition #1 using WP:NEO as a guideline. Ste4k 17:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Although this appears to be a neologism at first glance, a Google search retrieves approx 62,000 hits and several published works. I'm not sure what to make of it. אמר Steve Caruso(desk/poll) 18:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I forgive the author of the article. Nope, doesn't help. Merge to A Course in Miracles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- merge as per Arthur Rubin (I didn't try forgiveness & I feel just peachy inside!) Pete.Hurd 02:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Andrew Parodi 08:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just to inform fellow editors: it appears that the nomination of this page by Ste4k for deletion is a “bad faith” deletion attempt. Ste4k has recently submitted deletion nominations for all of the following A Course in Miracles-related articles: Helen Schucman, William Thetford, Foundation for Inner Peace, Foundation for A Course In Miracles, Community Miracles Center, Gary Renard, Kenneth Wapnick. And in the article Authorship of A Course in Miracles, Ste4k will not accept ANY websites as “verifiable” websites with regard to ACIM, including http://www.acim.org/ and http://www.facim.org/, both of which are the official websites of California-based non-profit organizations. This editor's deletion attempts are merely personal bias masquerading as adherence to Wikipedia policy. And it appears that this editor has a history with this kind of behavior. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother Australia series 6 -- Andrew Parodi 07:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not necessarily the case. There is little or no cited evidence of significance in any of these articles which comes from outside the ACIM movement itself, as such it appears to constitute a walled garden and this is a legitimate reason for nomination of multiple related articles which does not constitute bad faith. Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking any reputable sources from respected peer-reviewd journals, or possibly merge. Do not leave an article here, this looks like a one-man neologism. Just zis Guy you know? 12:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per JzG (and merge or redirect to ACIM if wanted, but there's very little to merge); I don't see how ACIM websites can be used to show notability, or provide verifiability, for an ACIM-related term. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, ACIM-cruft. Dr Zak 18:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per JzG and Dr. Zak, who I think just coined a term. JChap 19:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge whatever (if any) encyclopedic material isn't already mentioned in the parent article. Shanes 08:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into ACIM, prune and police the merged mess. --Pjacobi 19:25, 30 June 2006 (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.