Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sedona method

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sedona method[edit]

Procedural nomination - nominator has no opinion. This was originally nominated for CSD. Although it is unsourced, a google search has revealed marginal evidence of notability, and although I'm not convinced it is enough to warrant inclusion, neither am I willing to delete it outright. This article has suffered from it's share of WP:COI and WP:OR issues, and even if kept will require a great deal of work. Trusilver 03:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline G11 as promotional,and no evidence for notability. DGG (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely lacks independent references (even after more than 18 months in the wikipedia), hence non verifiable content.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem notable. Doesn't seem to provide any meaningful information. Bhimaji (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This particular brand of poppycock comes with personal endorsements from the authors of seriously horrible books. I presume that these are genuine, because I imagine that the legal penalties would be too great otherwise. Clearly this "method" is not notable in any substantive psychological sense, but it does seem likely that many well-meaning if rather dim people buy into this stuff. Do they actually do buy into it? I don't know, so no vote for now. Morenoodles (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep You did not do the book search -- where many separate books not connected to Levenson or Dwoskin refer to the "Sedona method." (83 hits on books.google.com alone). Clearly notable. [1] etc. The mathod may be wretched or not, but it is notable per WP standards. Collect (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That reference just mentions that it exists and roughly what it is. We're not denying it exists. It doesn't seem to me to confer notability, and they've never even tried it and are not a reliable source on it, it's not substantive.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This definitely seems to be snake oil of some sort: a self-help program whose claims are essentially untestable because it neither defines what it sets out to help nor sets clear criteria for success and failure. If you're a Homo sapiens, you probably shouldn't feel good about yourself anyways: self-esteem is self-delusion. But there is no lack of sources referring to this method and discussing it in some detail, which makes it notable by our standards. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us a substantive third party reference then? Particularly if it's snake oil or pseudoscience I won't change my vote without it, because without it, the article will never achieve balance.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources = no article. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources in the article do not establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The blurb on this retailer's page for a book titled Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology presents (if you click a "reveal" link) an extract that says .... psychotherapeutic methods of unknown or doubtful validity are proliferating on an almost weekly basis. For example, a recent and highly selective sampling of fringe psychotherapeutic practices (Eisner, 2000; see also Singer & Lalich, 1996) included neurolinguistic programming, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, Thought Field Therapy, Emotional Freedom Technique, rage reduction therapy, primal scream therapy, feeling therapy, Buddha psychotherapy, past lives therapy, future lives therapy, alien abduction therapy, angel therapy, rebirthing, Sedona method, Silva method, entity depossession therapy, vegetotherapy, palm therapy, and a plethora of other methods. I believe that "Eisner 2000" is Donald A. Eisner, The Death of Psychotherapy (Greenwood Press, 2000): Amazon.com's list of "key phrases" for this book runs: New York, Thought Field Therapy, Past-Lives Therapy, Strategic Therapy, Basic Books, Consumer Reports, San Francisco, Beck Depression Inventory, Alien Abduction Therapy, American Psychological Association, Implosion Therapy, Sedona Method, Spiritual Therapy, Top Dog, Carl Rogers, Jesus Christ, Los Angeles, Reassessing Freud, Emotional Freedom Technique, Entity De-possession Therapy, Fritz Perls, Clinical Research There, Guilford Press, Harvest House Publishers, John Wiley (some of which are surely innocent). "Singer and Lalich 1996" is surely Crazy Therapies, though the first-quoted author doesn't explicitly say that this book treats it. I've half a mind to hand over the $11.95 for this paper (linked from the Crazy Therapies article), which may or may not list it. I don't know what all of this goes to prove, really. Just that at least one researcher has thought that this is sufficiently silly and conspicuous to be worth at least a quick look. Morenoodles (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look, that Professional psychology, research and practice article mentions the therapy once, as one of several methods they eliminated from their study since these methods were not rated by enough of the people who responded to their questionaire for them to get meaningful data. If you want the Pdf please e-mail me. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2009 (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.