Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PsyMontréal Psychologists Company

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The result was Withdrawn by Nominator with no other comments. GB fan 14:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PsyMontréal Psychologists Company[edit]

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

Apparently a recreation of a speedily deleted article (originally tagged by NawlinWiki back on Feb. 5) this page does reference several articles that have been published by members of this firm in industry publications. But I can find no little coverage about this firm, which is the benchmark for notability. What's more, the article is pretty promotional in tone and I have flagged the username as promotional in nature at ARV. I am AfDing the article, rather than re-speedying or prodding it, so as to make a db-repost possible next time, should this nomination succeed and the article re-appear. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC) WITHDRAWN The creator continues to cite references on my User talk page that I believe could establish notably for this company, so much so that I believe what is needed is to clean up and fix the article, not delete it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some sloppy work from me on this nom, and for that, I apologize. The final reference in the article is a third-party WP:RS, an interview with one of the members of this company our main French-language all news channel. The creator (under a new username) has responded at length on my Talk page, and I'll just paste his or her full comments below. I suppose the key to retaining might be making the case that this firm meets WP:CORP (and not WP:NONPROFIT, as it is a commercial venture) because of the Quebec government's referencing of their work, especially in such areas as Motivational Interviewing, mentioned several times. (Or if that's not the case, there may well be content that could be merged there). Or Quebec's mental health system. Here are the creator's comments: Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Shawn for taking the time to review the article I created!

I am new to Wikipedia and certainly want to contribute in the best way possible.

I apologize my username was promotional (I did not realize it, due to my inexperience) and have thus changed it to JMDDO123.

I also apologize that the article appears promotional in nature. If you would please let me know which parts you found were promotional and I will make sure to modify the language ASAP.

But most importantly, I notice that you mentioned in the discussion about deleting PsyMontreal that all the articles are published by members of PsyMontreal. I apologize if the way I wrote the references made it seem that way, but in reality, that is not the case.

I have thus reviewed each of the 8 references to help you distinguish between those that are from members of PsyMontreal versus those that are independent:

Reference 1 is a 46 page document and Reference 2 is a 114 page document published by the government, which are not members of PsyMontreal, and each only includes a 6 page Annex written by a member of PsyMontreal-- but the body of the documents makes reference to the importance of prevention and the relevance of Motivational Interviewing for health behavior change, justifying the importance of the trainings in Motivational Interviewing (which had been done by PsyMontreal) by multiple authors within each document.

Reference 3 is a 161 page government document, not written by a member of PsyMontreal, and also highlighting the importance of the Motivational Interviewing trainings within the context of the government health promotion plans.

References 4 to 7 are articles written by members of PsyMontreal, published in the official journals of professional orders of various health care fields. Being journals of official professional orders, the articles cannot be promotional in nature. These references are meant to demonstrate the contributions of PsyMontreal in helping the members of these many health related Orders (sort of like listing publications from an author).

The Reference 8 is again not associated in any way to any member of PsyMontreal-- it is an RDI Santé news episode that covered the contributions of PsyMontreal's trainings in the Quebec Health care field. RDI is the French equivalent of the CBC News Network. If you would watch it (the episode runs 24:44mins, but they talk about PsyMontreal and Motivational Interviewing from 3:14min to 14:45mins).

Thus, if these additional descriptions clarify the nature of the references, would it be possible for you to mention in the discussion page that not all citations are from members of PsyMontreal, but that there are some that are independent of the firm? I would hope that would help other contributors to make a better judgment of the Notability of the PsyMontreal article.

Also, should I mention the above info in the deletion discussion pages? If so, which one? I notice there are 3 pages...

Thanks again for guiding me in the writing of my first article!

- - The creator has since offered further comments on my User talk page, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 4 March 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.