Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essential CBT Skills Series

Add links
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 was delete. A strong consensus developed to the effect that notability, as Wikipedia defines the term, was not shown. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essential CBT Skills Series

[edit]
Essential CBT Skills Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable instructional DVD series, without reliable independent sources about the series. 26 Google hits confirm that it exists, but it fails WP:N by a wide margin.

Also suffering from a lack of notability (and therefor proposed for deletion) is the company that produced these DVDs, The Skills Development Service Ltd. 81 distinct Google hits (104 if you remove Ltd from the search, [1] None of the four Google New Archive hits are sufficient[2], and the only results in Google Books or Scholar seem to be promotional. Note that searching without the "The" at the start returns many unrelated things... Fram (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. It is the only DVD training set on the most prominent currently psychotherapy approach Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. This series is the one of the kind both in the UK and in the world. The number of hits on the series website and the volume of search for CBT training materials demonstrates high relevance of the series and importance of it.

As for the Skills Development Service Ltd it should not be deleted as it is a well-established organisation of lond-standing (established for more than 20 years) with a client-base of more that 100,000 delegates. It is known nation-wide and is one of the leaders in the field of psychological skills training. It is a notable company with established links to the British Psychological society and many other professional bodies.

Both articles are not fully edited yet - they are stubs to give the essential information, but further editing will be taking place shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jein Gallaher (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: by Graeme Bartlett speedy delete declined as per talk page --Jein Gallaher (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.drinkanddrugsnews.com/UserPages.aspx?name=a956690b02dd4dc9b6bf619b50440100 --Jein Gallaher (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bps.org.uk/events/effective-therapeutic-problem-solving-techniques-clients-work-skills-development-service-ltd --Jein Gallaher (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://bps-learning-centre.bps.org.uk/bps-learning-centre/find-cpd/approved-external-cpd-opportunities/approved-cpd.cfm --Jein Gallaher (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.gmccsn.nhs.uk/uploaded/documents/(020916)0911Flyer.pdf --Jein Gallaher (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A declined speedy deletion has no impact on an AfD discussion, the rules for speedy are a lot more strict than those for deletion through AfD. Of the four sources you give here, the first is a press release or similar commercial posting ("We provide training throughout the UK"), the second and third show that the BPS has approved their courses (which is good, but not an indication of notability), and the fourth indicates that they have also organised a three-day course with someone else, which is of course just what they do. Has the company or the courses received significant attention from independent, reliable sources, e.g. newspaper articles about the company (or the DVDs)? Fram (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DVDs produced by the company have been reviewed in the UK top professional journals - however I currently only have hard copies, not links to these reviews. --Jein Gallaher (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also - company director has been interviewed in the national press and radio. --Jein Gallaher (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SDS Ltd is the company providing courses approved by BPS - and its CBT INtroductory course is THE ONLY course of this kind approved by BPS. The Essential CBT Skills Series is THE ONLY training set of this kind in the world. --Jein Gallaher (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether something is unique or not is not important for this discussion? Outside recognition in the form of articles, reviews, ... is what counts. The only thing on the SDS website that looks remotely like this is an interview one of the six trainers of the compay had with Lighter Life, but in the interview or in her bio accompanying it, the company isn't even mentioned! Fram (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.therapytoday.net/article/show/1976/ - one review i've found at the moment online - you cannot see the full copy as you need to purchase the journal for it - but if you look in the content - it is one of the SDS Ltd training DVDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jein Gallaher (talk • contribs) 14:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Company director Paul Grantham has been interviewed in "The Daily Telegraph" and "The Argos" both major newspapers although we can not currently find the sources needed to show this. He has also appeared on "BBC Radio 4" again being interviewed.--Jein Gallaher (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just give me a list of the reasons that this subject is Up for deletion. I think any british psychologist would argue that a BPS approved course certainly shows notability.--Jein Gallaher (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete on the basis of this list of reasons. Specifically, the article needs independent, reliable sources. If psychologists - specifically those independent of those involved in the production of this training material - find it notable, this article must provide evidence of that. Otherwise, it's simply advertising. Several Times (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a psychologist and the director of this training material and of SDS LTD. Paul Grantham our lead therapist finds it notbale and so do--Jein Gallaher (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC) I[reply]

That is helpful to know, as it could certainly be considered a conflict of interest. Several Times (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to the deletion of both these articles and request that their deletion is postponed until a later date.--Jein Gallaher (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph article featuring both Paul Grantham and The Skills Development Service http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/archive/843394/Volunteering-can-help-live-longer/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH --Jein Gallaher (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a Telegraph article, that is a Third Sector article, which while quoting Grantham mentions that he is a director of SDS. No other info about SDS is given, so this is not significant coverage of SDS at all, but a passing mention. Fram (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another article http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/3634052.print/ --Jein Gallaher (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has one half line about SDS. We are not asking whether Paul Grantham is notable or not, he is not the subject of these articles: we are asking for evidence that SDS, and the DVD set, are both notable. You haven't provided any articles or other independent coverage of these until now. Fram (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't like your tone. It feels like bullyng. I wonder whether you have some administrator code of conduct here - are you trained or briefed how to treat the new authors wthout offending them? Yes, I don't have much experience - this is my first article I've submitted to here. My personal belief was that providing evidence of delivering courses approved by BPS LC which are unique for UK is enough for considering this company prominent. Same goes for the DVD training set which is one of a kind. You have a different opinion - please express it in a polite way wthout making me feel like a criminal who attempts to do something wrong. Totally unacceptable way of holding a discussion. --Jein Gallaher (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread what I actually wrote. There is no bullying involved. I state facts. I have not used your lack of knowledge of how we e.g. lay-out discussion pages, since that would be a) irrelevant and b) impolite towards a new editor. I have discussed the lack of acceptable sources about the company and the DVDs, the fact that an article you claim is from the Telegraph appears to be from a totally different source, Third Sector, and the fact that when you voluntarily, without any request to do so, stated your position within the company, you gave two mutually contradictory versions. No one has asked why you want to have articles for these, no one has threatened you in any way, no one has tried to stop you from discussing things or from posting your links. But it is a discussion: if you can't stand people contadicting you, people scrutinizing your statements, and people simply disagreeing with you, then Wikipedia is probably not the right place for you. You are free to stay around and edit as much as you like, but don't complain about bullying or personal attacks without a very good reason to do so please. Fram (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conflict of interest conflict of interest as I am not a Director of The Skills Development Service Ltd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jein Gallaher (talk • contribs) 19:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First you state "I am a psychologist and the director of this training material and of SDS LTD." Now you state "I am not a Director of The Skills Development Service Ltd." While it is not really relevant whether you are or aren't a director of SDS, it does give a much better impression if you stick to one story. Fram (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fram let us not go down the route of personal attack. Yes, I was unclear in my message - just because I got quite pressurised in this what seemed a heated discussion. I am one of the directors of this training materials and I meant to say - "I worked with SDS Ltd" in producing it. Overall I would very much welcome more civilized way of conductng this type of discussion. I am a professional person, who has an opinion in the matter, and I am entytled to my opinion just as much as you to yours. I strongly feel the new contributors should be treated with more respect this discussion feels more like an interogation of a criminal than a civilized cinversation between professionals. I hope it can be brought back to polite ways rather than presonal attacks demonstrated in your last message. --Jein Gallaher (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one was asking for your credentials, professional status, or affiliation with the company. You were not "pressurized" in any way to divulge any information about you personally. But when you did of your own free will, you gave two contradictory versions. Pointing this out is not a personal attack. Nothing else I said was about you, but about the articles and about the sources provided. I would prefer if we could stick to that. Fram (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you start using expressions like "if you stick to one story" it is a personal attack and cannot be viewed in any other way. Are there any other administrators that I can deal with? I find your approach unprofessional and unhelpful. --Jein Gallaher (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:List of administrators. Fram (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both -- As mentioned above, the references for both articles are entirely unacceptable, the company article furthermore contains quite some puffery. The only claim of notability (that the company is a leading training organisation) is not referenced at all. Both article subjects seem to be entirely run-of-the-mill, with no documented general or historic significance whatsoever. The DVD set article is certainly speediable as it makes no assertion of notability. --Pgallert (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again - I would appreciate if the administrators had watched their language! I don't know how it is in your country but here in the UK courses approved by the British Psychological Society make the training company "one of the leading" ones in the field. So - please do not use the word "puffery" unless you can present me with the list of companies who are more notable in this field. Again - you are entitled to your opinion, but it has to be equally evidence-based. And you are certainly are not entitled to insulting the company you are talking about just because you are not familiar with the field. --Jein Gallaher (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I use the word puffery in its Wikipedia meaning: vague, unsubstantiated positive claims, see WP:PUFF. Leading, long standing, high-quality, leading, specialist are all phrases which perfectly fit this definition. To me that's not an insult to anyone, but if you feel insulted on behalf of your article then I offer my apologies. If you feel it is evident that courses approved by the British Psychological Society make the training company "one of the leading" ones in the field then the phrase Many of the SDS Ltd courses are approved by The British Psychological Society Learning Centre, as it currently appears in The Skills Development Service Ltd, is absolutely sufficient and does not need to be spiced with interpretations of this statement. Cheers, --Pgallert (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Whilst I think it might be possible to save the corporate article if Jein.Gallaher can come up with some substantiation with appropriate proof and citation for their associations "It is known nation-wide and is one of the leaders in the field of psychological skills training. It is a notable company with established links to the British Psychological society and many other professional bodies", it seems unlikely that such proof could be forthcoming inkeeping with WP:CITE, and in either case, the DVD set is not notable enough for its own article. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Little better than spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:32, 1 September 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Essential_CBT_Skills_Series&oldid=1142193741"