Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Services – Board Certified Practitioner

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 for now. This article provides little context to the reader. A merge is suggested but no target is identified and Human services is a redlink. If an appropriate merge target is found there is no prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Will gladly restore page history if needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human Services – Board Certified Practitioner

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

Detailed description of credential with no assertion of notability per WP:GNG, as approved by three organizations of unknown notabiity. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and no WP:Secondary sources have been cited yet in the article. Evident WP:Conflict of interest by article's creator, who works for one of the (redlinked) organizations cited, though this alone isn't sufficient grounds for deletion. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Gurt Posh (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per A7 - there is no assertion of notability. If notability is asserted, I might revise.--Cerejota (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might have been a good idea to define human services first! No attempt made to establish notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep./merge Looking at their site, "human services" means counseling. In fact, it's pretty clear it does from the history paragraph It will of course be necessary to check they are legitimate, and to rewrite the jargon, and to explain a little better the apparently overlapping relationships of all the organizations listed. Normally we have articles all genuine national certifying organizations, and most of the time, merge their certifications requirements into those articles. . And, almost all the time, the articles on them are indeed written by people with COI. Of course it needs a proper check for references, and a check for objectivity also. I declined an A7, saying something is a national organization that offers accreditation in its field is a claim to possible importance. In fact, I regard saying something is a national organization in something not completely trivial is a claim to importance in any case. Nor do I regard it as a G11, for it is factual, not promotional. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 13 August 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.