Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapport (NLP)

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, and admittedly, early. The consensus here is almost unanimous, and merging has been effectively refuted. The article creator has also opined delete. No need for this to go on longer. Keeper ǀ 76 20:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapport (NLP)[edit]

This appears to be an in-universe description of how NLP uses one word, with no actual support for the term as a separate concept outside of the NLP walled garden. I think it's generally agreed that NLP is pseudoscience, and I believe that by giving credence to the idea that NLP has some special insight into the concept of rapport which is distinct from that described at rapport (a questionable premise, I think, but not really germane here) we are giving undue weight to a fringe view, in contravention of policy. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does seem like an extreme amount of coverage, for what could be covered in a paragraph or two at most of a main or summary article. MBisanz ^talk 21:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could be a paragraph in the main article for NLP but no evidence of NLP's usage of the term having any notability outside of NLP itself. DuncanHill (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete - The question of "is it real or pseudoscience" isn't that relevant to AFD, where the question is more "is it notable" than the nature of people's opinions exist on it. Doubtless it has coverage in reliable sources, and notability. The argument that it's "in universe" is also not that compelling, since it describes a specific methodology that is already known to be referenced or used by multiple reliable sources outside the NLP world. What decides this one for me is mostly WP:MM -- there's too much topic overlap, and not enough distinguishing it from other rapport-related topics, to justify a separate article. Merge any useful content, and delete -- little need for a redirect as this isn't an article name that people are likely to look for at random. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and delete isn't possible - you need to keep the GFDL attribution. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment the question of "is it real or pseudoscience" is perfectly relevant to AFD. A subtopic of a major subject like mathematics is perfectly OK. A subtopic of a pseudoscience is not, because it suggests cruft, and suggests misleadingly that the pseudoscience has a weight that it cannot have (being a pseudoscience). Peter Damian (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rapport, which could be a good deal larger itself..but be mindful of undue weight. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You've just alerted me to what a crap article Rapport is. It seems to be copied from the NLP article. 'Rapport' is of course an English word, but WP is not a dictionary. Is the concept of rapport used in any of the hard sciences, or does it have notable references in the works of existentialists, other mainstream psychologists? Erickson is a hypnotist. Peter Damian (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, there are 400 Medline hits for "rapport" plus "psychology", suggesting it may have a specialist meaning beyond the dictionary definition. It's worth looking into, at any rate. Thatcher 07:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neuro-linguistic_programming#Rapport seems to cover this issue much more succinctly and appropriately already. Anything more than a see also sentence in the Rapport article would be undue weight. -Hunting dog (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic is more than adequately covered, and better sourced within its NLP context, in Neuro-linguistic_programming#Rapport. The use of references to Erickson, Satir, Perls etc. seem to me to be unnecessary and perhaps somewhat misleading. Poltair (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete summarising anything which is really necessary and adding it to the relevant section of the NLP article. An encyclopedia summarises knowledge- this is not an NLP wiki, of which I'm sure there are several, which are entirely for the subject, and can colonise the entire encyclopedia covering their belief system in meandering depth with numerous articles. Sticky Parkin 00:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
de-fork I am unclear on the proper procedure for merging/redirecting/de-forking. This article is a fork of Neuro-linguistic_programming#Rapport; it should be de-forked and sent back to the main article, keeping such text and references as appropriate, of course. A Medline search gives only 6 articles that discuss rapport in a specifically NLP context; that does not seem to me to justify keeping the article as a separate fork. Thatcher 00:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The level of coverage here is totally disproportionate. rootology (T) 00:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicative, and POV. To the extent No need to merge to NLP, as there's nothing relevant not in the main article. Inappropriate to merge to rapport, as its a special and unimportant meaning and there's no relevant content. Inappropriate redirect, as the phrase would not be searched for by itself DGG (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Peter Damian (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find the delete arguments quite compelling. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, per Poltair, per Rootology. Hiding T 16:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a separate topic, this article fails WP:N. The small amount of information on this page can easily be included in the main NLP article where it will be in-context as part of that system. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:33, 15 August 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.