Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imago therapy
- 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 no consensus. and no chance of reaching it per WP:SNOW. Nomination has attracted one keep vote in the three weeks it has been open for discussion, relisted twice already, no need to relist a third time per WP:RELIST and no need to let it run any further as there has been not one comment made in two weeks. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Imago therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional page largely sourced to self-published sources. Mentions elsewhere are trivial or in unreliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability standard. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Psychology. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Agree this is promotional, but it has many hits in GScholar going back 20 yrs, seems to be an accepted form of therapy. GScholar hits discuss how it works etc. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Google Scholar is a good place to search for sources for such topics, but the number of hits there is not necessarily indicative of notability. I looked at the first five or six hits and they all seemed to be from unnotable journals and written by the same group of researchers. Is there anything better further down the results? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Google Scholar certainly casts a very wide net, including unpublished and un-peer-reviewed theses. (Note: I'm not saying that any of the articles in question here fall into that category!) I should point out that at least a few of the articles in question appeared first in The Journal of Imago Relationship Therapy. I can't find a lot of information on how independent that journal was from the theory's initial proponents and backers. If anyone else can provide more context for that it would be helpful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4575684/ I get that one via pubmed, this one in a Turkish journal (less about the therapy itself) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15095118/ Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Clicking on "Author information" for the first of those doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence. When it was published both authors seem to have been working for commercial counselling organisations rather than universities or major teaching hospitals. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4575684/ I get that one via pubmed, this one in a Turkish journal (less about the therapy itself) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15095118/ Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Google Scholar certainly casts a very wide net, including unpublished and un-peer-reviewed theses. (Note: I'm not saying that any of the articles in question here fall into that category!) I should point out that at least a few of the articles in question appeared first in The Journal of Imago Relationship Therapy. I can't find a lot of information on how independent that journal was from the theory's initial proponents and backers. If anyone else can provide more context for that it would be helpful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Google Scholar is a good place to search for sources for such topics, but the number of hits there is not necessarily indicative of notability. I looked at the first five or six hits and they all seemed to be from unnotable journals and written by the same group of researchers. Is there anything better further down the results? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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.