Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collaborative language systems

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 keep. No consensus to delete but I agree that this article needs work. I first thought it was a copyvio but nothing comes up on google. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative language systems[edit]

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

promotional essay. It isn't clear where this fits into the range of therapies, it isn't clear if there are any actual studies on its effectiveness, it isn't clear what followers of other techniques think of it, it isn't clear how widely it is used--whether it is idiosyncratic, or standard. I am unable to rewrite it with going back to the original sources and starting over--I can penetrate most jargon, but I've given up on this one. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever the merits or lack thereof of this therapy may be, both the Google book search and the Google scholar search show widespread non-trivial coverage, making the topic notable; any content issues with the article itself appear fixable. --Lambiam 02:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This does sound quite a technical article composed by some one who has knowledge of the subject, and it might contribute to other linguistic-related articles in Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject area is talk therapy and family therapy rather than linguistics. --Lambiam 17:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs a better context and introduction to broaden the article's accessibility by those not intimately involved in this approach. Help; not Deletion. SBaker43 (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found many different sources on Google:Scholar [1]. The article does need work, I agree, although after reading it, I do understand it. Not sure I'd want to try to edit it, although I think the big problem is longer sentences than normal -- I found one with at least 55 words in it (pretty typical of academic writing, though).Marikafragen (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems the people who want to keep it think it might be an acceptable article--igf someone write it properly, but nobody seems actually willing to do it. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This may be a notable topic, but in its current state the article brings the project into disrepute by describing a pseudoscientific practice without any scientific criticism or response. Them From Space 21:46, 30 May 2012 (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.