Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association

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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association[edit]

Non-notable non-governmental organization in UK for a ~~fringe~~ psychotherapy. The article has no secondary, independent sources per WP:RS, and is written as an advert. Delete and start from scratch if necessary. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article now has secondary sources. "Fringe psychotherapy" is personal bias and not NPOV. AJRG (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - POV is allowed in talk pages. That being said, "fringe" is probably inappropriate. See History of neuro-linguistic programming. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization." AJRG (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you can find additional sources, I'll ask another admin to close this discussion per usual practice. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep Meets criteria for inclusion. Legit under WP:ORG. Whether or not it is "fringe pyschotherapy" is a POV debate not appropriate for this AfD. Neurolinguistics itself is a science involving specific brain activities related to language processing. --- Taroaldo (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would also like the article to avoid Fallacies of definition - that is, defining itself as an organization that does X and Y for X therapists. It needs to be fleshed out. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero indications of importance. No information about membership, or role. No third party sources. DGG (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article has three independent sources - Channel 4, the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy and a popular student website for Transactional Analysis (a different therapy modality entirely). NLPtCA is the body governing the use of NLP in therapy and counselling in the UK. It is clearly of national scope as required under WP:ORG. AJRG (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian makes a fair point. Article now clarified. AJRG (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not properly sourced and thus fails Wikipedia:ORG#Primary_criterion. There is no indication of notability based upon significant coverage of the organization in third-party reliable sources--Cailil ^talk 18:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More references added. UKCP and EANLPt are authoritative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJRG (talk • contribs) 20:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - hopefully I've now addressed the concerns raised. If you don't agree, having read the latest version, please explain why. AJRG (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Confirm earlier Delete As before, nothing is even asserted in the latest version as being notable. Still no indication of membership or of publications. No third party references outside the neurolinguistic community, except that they're included in directories. DGG (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. TantraTalk (UK, not an NLP site): "The Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy & Counselling Association is the only professional organisation for psychotherapists and counsellors using Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP)." Positive Health Magazine (US and UK, not an NLP site): article by member of NLPtCA. Channel 4 (UK TV channel, not NLP): NLPtCA is the only NLP organisation listed as a resource in a piece on attempted suicide. If you think the article doesn't do justice to the references, that's an argument for improvement, not deletion. AJRG (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added reference to NLPtCA member working with torture victims. AJRG (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with DGG and confirm my previous "delete." Core issues are unchanged. Info from The Supporter is not about the NLPCA. There is no notability established by significant third party coverage of the organization and thus it fails WP:ORG--Cailil ^talk 13:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NLPtCA is the UK national governing body for the use of a notable technique (NLP) in therapy. I don't see your argument being applied to the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. Part of NLPtCA's function is equivalent to an examining board, and I don't see your argument being applied to AQA, OCR (examination board), the Welsh Joint Education Committee, or the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations & Assessment either. I've attempted to meet your underlying issue by adding references to training institutes providing courses governed by the NLPtCA, but your interpretation of WP:ORG seems a bit narrow. AJRG (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added Controversy section. AJRG (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 17:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-confirm earlier delete The best that the supporters of the article have been able to say is that it's the only NLP Counseling/therapy association. They have not however shown that any NLP counseling organization is notable. and that's the point--this is a small group supporting each other as being notable, otherwise known as a walled garden. DGG (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Added reference to a recently published textbook on Neurolinguistic Psychotherapy. Bill O'Hanlon reviews it here[1]. AJRG (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2008 (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.