Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NLP Modeling

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. This is a rats nest of interrelated articles, and the same criticisms apply to many of them. The consensus to delete is very strong, and so I'm being bold, and applying the deletion rationale here to a number of articles in the NLP universe. At a first pass, these include: Strategy (NLP), Research on NLP, As-if, Persuasion uses of NLP, Neurological levels, Neurosemantics, and Well-formed outcome. I chose these articles because they are subject to the same problems raised by the commenters below: overly vague, poor or no citations, duplicative of material in the main article, and promotional in nature. Nothing in this close should be construed to indicate that the articles that weren't deleted should be kept: I'm simply being conservative and allowing some of the articles that are slightly better cited to continue on for a short while. Separate AfDs on those articles would be perfectly appropriate. Nandesuka (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Neuro-linguistic programming

NLP Modeling

NLP Modeling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Per Wikipedia:DEL#Reasons_for_deletion, in particular

• It is advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject). The article is highly promotional (NLP is full of self-promotional terms). Please note the distinction between 'promotion', which is advertising and shouldn't be in Wikipedia, and a valid article about a scientific concept.
• The article is entirely content-free. Note the phrase is "[NLP] says that know-how can be separated from the person, documented and transferred experientially, and that the ability to perform the skills can be transferred subject to the modelers own limits, which can change, and improves with practice". This is of course gibberish. You cannot 'perform a skill'. Either the NLP technique of copying a skill actually transfers the skill or ability, or it transfers the ability to copy the actions of skilled people. The first is impossible, the second is useless.
• The article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms and original theories and conclusions. * The article tries underpins the pseudoscientific basis of NLP by appealing to valid scientific notions like 'model'. In NLP, modelling someone's behaviour is simply copying the behaviour of a skilled person in the attempt to transfer those skills. Thus NLP is peddled as a miraculous method that can turn you into something you are not.
• The article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. There is absolutely no need for such a huge section on NLP modeling. The effect of this subpage is to turn the article in to a “how to”.

Peter Damian (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. As the closing admin for the very recent Afd, I am happy for this Afd to be left open for at least a day, despite my Afd closure notice which I still think is the right approach. I do think this Afd is too early and slightly inappropriate, but Peter has selected this as the most appropriate for deletion out of the previous bundle, we may as well evaluate it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't understand. The previous AfD was for the main article (NLP). This one is entirely separate, and is for the subarticles. There was some agreement on the previous one that articles like this should be eliminated. Perhaps you misread the title? Peter Damian (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Dont be silly. Or should I say, "Perhaps you didnt read the AFD closure I wrote on the last AFD".
      You did nominate NLP Modeling in the AFD, which was less than 24 hours ago, and I clearly said that this matter should be taken to a central talk page, and the right solution found via discussion. I left the door open to future renominations once that had been done, but here we are again. As you have only nominated a single page this time, I have let everyone here know that I'm happy to ignore the fact that you have just said "up yours" to me/Wikipedia/The Man/whatever, and gone against what I consider to be the right solution. The approach you have taken this time is A.OK with me. I merely wish you had initiated this AFD yesterday - we live and learn.
      On the last AFD there was no concensus to do anything - a few people did opine as you suggest, very early, probably without having reviewed all of the pages concerned, and their input was probably solicited via Wikipedia Review, for good or ill. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
      • You said "you have just said "up yours" to me/Wikipedia/The Man/whatever". He has done no such thing. Look at the discussion at Wikipedia Review and on my talk page. He asked for and received lots of advice. He followed that advice. By doing this. Your advice was not the only advice. Don't take it personal. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Per WP:NOTGUIDE and by failing WP:N as a separate topic from Neuro-linguistic programming. Modeling is one aspect of that topic and is easily covered in a section of the NLP article. The spin-off page has no unique content or references and tends towards a how-to guide. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This is just group's original theory. Artene50 (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Concur with Jack-A-Roe there is a need for consolidation on this topic in general, some hard editing, more objectivity and fewer unsupported claims. This is one of the weaker spin offs and should go. --Snowded TALK 06:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep This article was just at an AFD which closed speedily and it is too soon for a renomination. Further, this AFD seems to be tainted by canvassing - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism#NLP: deletion discussion. The nomination attempts to attack the article on numerous grounds but these all seem to be spurious in that the article has sources, content and does not seem to be blatant advertising or have an instructional style. It seems that any defects can be corrected by normal editing per our editing policy and that this should be considered first per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Notifying a single WikiProject can hardly be called canvassing. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not just that WikiProject that's been canvassed. I came in this morning to a message on my talk page pointing me here. I also think that this is precipitate. I also feel that at least some of the criteria suggested for deletion in the proposal are transparently false. The article is not advertising (although it could do with copyediting to make it more objective); it is not content-free (trivially true - the comments from the nominator amount to style criticisms, not a demonstration of absence of content); we could probably use moure sources, but sources are not lacking (and the misuse of scientific terms is neither here nor there; to suggest that orthodox, 'legitimate' science has an exclusive right to common words like 'model' is obvious POV pushing; the only criterion I regard as valid is the last one - is this really a sufficiently notable aspect of the fringe practice that is NLP that it deserves its own article? The nominator, who styles himself a logician, ought perhaps to review the way in which he has gone about reviewing the NLP articles. That, and also re-read WP:SPIDER. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a refined AFD, so I think it is very reasonable that Peter Damian notified a bunch of people who participated in the last AFD and the subsequent discussion at User talk:Peter Damian#Psychobabble. In addition, I notified the three projects that I quickly found in the discussion at User talk:Jayvdb#NLP : WikiProject NLP concepts and methods‎, WikiProject Psychology and WikiProject Rational Skepticism. I then notified the original contributor M.C. ArZeCh‎ (talk · contribs) who isnt very active, and all of the contributors to this article who have made significant edits, as they have an interest in the topic, and maybe also an interest in improving the article: FT2, JamesMLane, Action potential, DCDuring, PatrickMerlevede. Both Peter and I are trying to ensure we have a more productive AFD this time, and so have notified groups that can make it happen. As far as I can tell, both Peter and myself have both notified people from both sides of the debate. If the debate here doesnt lead to an obvious conclusion, the closing admin (which wont be me) will need to put a lot of thought into how these notifications affected the outcome. My apologies in advance for making their job difficult. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The previous close was procedural and without prejudice due to the difficulty of evaluating a large group of articles of varying quality in a single nomination. Thatcher 16:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I was personally notified on my talk page about the re-nomination. I was not encouraged to participate in either side of the issue. Personally, I think it's okay to notify potentially interested parties about an AFD discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Snowded. This fails WP:N and has no significance outside of the wider topic of NLP. Reminds me of game guides and other fancrufty material that spawns an article for each minor aspect of a topic. We're here to provide an overview, not a detailed in-depth explanation of every minor topic within NLP. The article itself doesn't actually seem to say much, the majority of it seems to be a quote and a list. Hardly surprising I guess as there are no reliable sources to provide any extra information, which in itself tells me the article shouldn't exist. naerii 09:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This article describes, in a pseudoscientific way, a method for apparently observing person A's behaviour and abilities, and copying them to person B. The article's use of scientific language such as model, combined with a liberal sprinkling of words that will be attractive to almost everyone, is snake oil of the worst kind. For example, the learner works on minimizing preconceptions with access to the master ... and engages in unconscious micro-muscle modeling so as to accurately reproduce the desired skill. This is patent nonsense, totally unsupported by any evidence, scientific study, or even an example. Poltair (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, and frankly unreadable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• delete, summarising anything in the rare event that anything genuinely is useful rather than verbose, and not already mentioned, in the main NLP article. Interestingly, the NLP article is not too long so they can't say all these articles are here to stop the main articles' length being excessive. I seem to sadly know a bit about the subject lol, and 'modelling' is an important part of NLP but 'within NLP'. The concept in part already existed, they didn't invent it, it's called a role model, they just expanded upon it and added spiritual beliefs about skill being 'contagious' to it. Sticky Parkin 12:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unnecessary and poorly supported by independent evidence. The NLP walled garden needs pruning, and this branch is rotten to the core, so let's start here. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree these articles need ripping out and rewriting. They never really recovered from HeadleyDown, and I was uninclined to be part of the repair work on that topic at the time. Nonetheless the issue of whether NLP modelling is notable or not, and whether it has significant mention in reliable sources, seems well documented. The one-sided nature of HeadleyDown's POV warred viewpoint that started back in 2005 seems also well attested. You've said "poorly supported" but I'm not sure from the above, if you checked for actual cites (part documented at /Evidence). They're there, and there are a lot of them, and they're mostly non-trivial sources. (Can't guarantee 100% but I've tried to only include good quality sources). Can you review?

"POV issues" are not usually a good reason for deletion. That said, I wouldn't argue with a "delete - unfixable other than by a complete rewrite" view. My concern would be the historic POV nature of editing in the topic, which seems influenced by HeadleyDown by proxy, and an NLP proponent or two, in equal measure. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Review. I would like to, but I'm not sure I have the time or competence. NLP deserves some kind of article, but the exact content, as well as the question of how many sub-topics and forks it deserves, is complex. Ideally, such decisions would be made by editors with knowledge of the topic but no axes to grind (from either point of view). I don't know of such a person, and I doubt I can become such a person in a reasonable time frame and taking my other obligations into account. Thatcher 18:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason there are no editors with academic background is that they have all been banned. See my comments on Flavius below. I do know Flavius' real life identity but whether he could be persuaded back after his disgraceful treatment is a good question. Peter Damian (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Accounts operated by HeadleyDown were blocked. Third parties likely to have been recruited by him or editing in conjunction with him, or with evidenced ties to him, were prevented from editing on the topic by other administrators (not myself). That was the extent of administrative action. This was after a year's POV warring, dispute resolution, arbitration, numerous chances, arbcom mentoring, and a large number of blocks (none by myself), finally leading to a site ban for the entire Hong Kong sock ring. I was not an administrator at the time of these, evidencing they were the decisions of multiple others. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, what does FT2 mean by 'never recovered from Headley Down'? Peter Damian (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The main article Neuro-linguistic programming seems sufficient without spewing sub articles all over the encyclopedia about less than notable subtopics. Edison (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Reply I'm tempted to move the majority of this to the talk page, for the convenience of the next 4 days' worth of commentors who will have no idea what is going on beyond the fact that they are being asked to evaluate a single article. I looked at Gestalt therapy as a model, being a subject that is more notable and has more scientific backing. It has one main article with no forks describing special terminology or world views, etc. I think the best ultimate outcome here is a single article on Neuro-linguistic_programming that fairly describes the concepts and criticisms. Picking off the sub-articles one at a time is one possible strategy but probably not the best. If someone could write a decent article we could simply redirect all the forks back to the main article. NLP does have some academic credence (although not a great deal); if it originated as an academic theory and moved into the realm of pop-psych self-help, it should be fairly easy to establish both its credentials and its criticisms. Thatcher 19:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note -- Various accusations of bad faith etc have been moved to the talk page for those that have the inclination to read it. naerii 19:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good call. relevant to the AFD, but on balanxce probably right. In which case:

• Comment Evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources includes as follows (taken from /Evidence):

The nominator presented the following grounds for deletion: "It is advertising or other spam" - Not supported by the evidence. None of the following sample cites are "advertizing or other spam" "Entirely content free" - I'm not sure what this means. Clarification? "The article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" - see below. It seems "possible" and indeed actual, within the context of what is considered a "reliable source" in most topics outside hard science/medicine (ie the "coverage" is not simply limited to just peer reviewed research). It turns out that the specific topic ("NLP's modeling methodology") is widely cited across a wide range of reputable fields and sources. Specifically, NLP modelling approaches seem to be very widely referenced by independent reliable sources. I found fairly quickly and with little effort, a wide range of independent reliable sources that specifically mention or focus upon NLP's modeling methodology. (I stopped looking after page 1 of 6): From PubMed (full papers not read, these need re-checking as I've relied upon abstracts): PubMed NLP communication model - Lachler J. 1991 Feb;84(2):74-6. German. PMID 2005751 PubMed NLP communication model, an introduction - Schneeberger S, Rohr E. 1991 Feb;84(2):70-3. German. PMID 2005750 PubMed The art, science, and techniques of reframing in psychiatric mental health nursing - Pusut DJ, published in "Issues in mental health nursing" 1991 Jan-Mar;12(1):9-18. PMID 1988384 ("Reframing is a powerful psychotherapeutic intervention... Fundamental assumptions of the NLP model are discussed") PubMed Neuro linguistic programming: an aid to management - Boas P, Aust Health Review, a publication of the Australian Hospital Association, 1983 Aug;6(3):38-40. PMID 10263094 From Google, a range of sources apparently published outside the "NLP world" with significant reference and/or coverage of NLP modelling: The SAGE Handbook of Counselling and Psychotherapy p.333 [1] Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics, 7th International Conference Proceedings, 2007, p. 533 onwards [2] Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning p.442 onwards [3] Trends in Learning Research, preface ix and the entirety of Chapter 5 (of 7 chapters), eg p. 106 onwards. [4] [5] The Art of the Question: A Guide to Short-Term Question-Centered Therapy p.31 (per google books snapshot image) [6] Modelling and Simulation Methodology (thumbnail snapshots) [7] Psychotherapy and Mental Handicap p.211 [8] Medical Aspects of Disability p.301 [9] Designing Authenticity Into Language Learning Materials p.8-9 [10] Other: Szalay et al (1993) Rediscovering free associations for use in psychotherapy American Psychological Association (APA) psychnet. Published in Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training. Special Issue: Psychotherapy for the addictions. Vol 30(2), Sum 1993, pp. 344-356 doi:10.1037/0033-3204.30.2.344 (evidence of cite) What Makes a Good Educator? The Relevance of Meta Programmes Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, v29 n5 p515-533 Oct 2004. Covers the model from NLP known as "meta programs". Site operated by Education Resources Information Center, part of the U.S. Department of Education [11] A Review of Alternative Approaches to the Treatment of Post Traumatic Sequelae, Traumatology journal, Volume VI, Issue 4, Article 2 (December, 2000). Discusses NLP modelling within the context of the VK/D model, and concludes "The available evidence suggests TIR, the TRI Method, and V/KD are effective treatments for posttraumatic sequelae." [12] See also Reflections on Active Ingredients in Efficient Treatments of PTSD, Part 1 at The International Electronic Journal of Innovations in the Study of the Traumatization Process and Methods for Reducing or Eliminating Related Human Suffering, covering the same work ("V/K D is a Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) technique. NLP is a method of modeling...") [13] Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association New Researchers/Student Conference - "NLP modelling in the classroom: students modelling the good practice of other students" [14]

I stopped at this point. This much on a quick search suggests that NLP modeling is a topic that has significant coverage and interest by multiple independent sources, of a reasonable quality and credibility, outside its own field. As for the quality of the article, that may well need attention. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said earlier (my comments seem to have been deleted) you cannot reference promotional material with other promotional material. Has anyone actually looked at the self-help books your Google search returns? They are self-help books. I don't regard these as reliable sources. Best. Peter Damian (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(Point of order: Your comments were moved to the talk page of this page by an uninvolved admin. Thatcher 21:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

Comment Respectfully, I think it's safe to say that "self-help books" can be a reliable source. Perhaps not an academic one, but certainly How to Win Friends and Influence People could indeed have reliable contents. Certainly any editor may hold an opinion on any given source as reliable or not reliable. Let me ask: if these sources are indeed not reliable (and I'm not saying that they are), why are they not reliable? Just saying "I don't regard them as reliable" isnt' going to cut it--we need details, please.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Self-help books and so on represent what someone talking about a perspective on life/a belief system believes. As such, they may be a reliable source for what that person/movement believes or a related movement, but not as near to evidence-based thinking as a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The same as if a book on reiki says "reiki has been known to cure people of ADHD for life in three minutes" (to quote a sort-of NLP-style invented example) that's not necessarily objective fact without proof from third party or uninvolved peer-reviewed scientific sources. It's just evidence of what the subculture itself believes. As to FT2's mentions, none of them of course are independent of the main topic of NLP itself, of which this article should be a part. However I will say that as someone with a passing knowledge of the subject, this is a part of it that I knew of in more depth than some of the others in the prior group AfD which I suspect are far less notable. Sticky Parkin 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A comparison of PD's characterization, and the actual titles and sources, shows a marked discrepancy.

It is hard to understand the logic in classifying 1/ an encyclopedia of language teaching, 2/ a reference book on counselling and psychotherapy, 3/ an international engineering and ergonomics conference proceeding, 4/ a summary of research in learning, and 5/ a medical guide to disability, as all being "self help books", much less Paul McDonald's point. That's the google ones. The other sample coverage includes coverage published in 6/ the APA's own journal "Psychotherapy Theory, Research, Practice, Training", 7/ a paper published in an established peer-reviewed journal [15] and indexed by the Department of Education's systems, and 8/ a further paper in the probably reputable journal 'Traumatology'.

The characterization of all these as "self help books" and so on, seems at the least to be lacking evidence. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

WHAT? I folllowed this Google that FT2 provided and up pops a list of the usual garishly-coloured hysterically written books that I was talking about. E.g., here "So important is the skill of modelling that it has been said that NLP is modelling". The usual breathless claims of a book that is selling 'modelling' as a way to make your business run better and make more money (mostly for the charlatans who practice this nonsense). FT2, could you also confirm that you have no COI here? I believe you claimed once that you had studied in California with these gurus and you have a Master Practitioner certificate? No problem with that but can you confirm you have no current business involvement in this? Peter Damian (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Also can you do a bit of research and clarify which of the other 'sources' you cite are authorative. The one you mention here, sampled randomly from your selection is "The International Electronic Journal of Innovations in the Study of the Traumatization Process and Methods for Reducing or Eliminating Related Human Suffering". What is this? It looks like self-published material. And the guy who wrote it 'Fred Gallo PhD' appears to be this person. Peter Damian (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a third party webpage, commenting on a cited source. It's not a source in itself. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per Guy, Snowden, Naerii's arguments. The sub pages seem less than notable, and concerns about independence of the sources as detailed by others. rootology (T) 02:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify what exactly leads you to feel the subject matter is not documented in multiple, independent, reliable sources? See above - discussion in a wide range of encyclopedias, APA and other reputable peer reviewed journals, and multi-discipline discussion in reputable sources unconnected with "NLP" is good evidence of meeting WP:N.

See WP:JNN - "Concerns about independence of sources" needs some kind of reasoning, not just assertion against evidence. If the article is so badly written that delete and rewrite is needed then that's reasonable (see above). But merely "delete because badly written" is not an AFD norm (WP:PROBLEM). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think delete for borderline notability as mentioned above, and also cognizant of Guy's long-proven claim that lots of people use Wikipedia to hawk all sorts of fringe pseudoscience games, conspiracy theories, and all sorts of other non-notable mischief. In more detail, for NLP Modeling specifically there are only three listed sources.[16] Plus a forum link, which is inherently not RS, and that forum appears offline as well.[17] There is a link to this page which is claimed to be NLP modeling inspired, but that page never even contains the text "NLP" so that appears to be an irrelevant external link, plus calling it NLP inspired appears to be possible OR. Jacobson, S, and his sidjacobson.com domain which is the "South Central Institute of Neuro-Linguistic Programming", is not an independent source. That leaves the first source[18], which just appears to refer to NLP modeling, but we don't have access to that book to verify, and it seems to be only used to trivially identify it in passing in the header. That leaves one source plus a bunch of guide-sounding information on what appears to be a fringe pseudoscientific discipline that doesn't have mainstream scientific acceptance, or else there would be a lot more sources from reputable mainstream science, psychology, etc. other sources to document it. It sort of looks like the article is a bit of puffery too, given that there are unsourced claims about uses name dropping Jesus, Sherlock Holmes, and Einstein. Overall, I'm satisfied with calling for a delete based on all of this. It just seems completely borderline. At best a stub (maybe, based on if community consensus decides to go that way after five days), not a detailed guide on one aspect of what based on the present article appears semi-notable discipline of likely fringe science. I hope that cleared it up, and I think thats where I'll stand based on the present article as of today. rootology (T) 04:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately all these are irrelevant, because the citations you discuss are those currently used in the article which we both agree is poorly written and badly cited. AFD is a process used to determine if a topic is notable and encyclopedic. The main test for that is whether there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If it's badly written, we rewrite. You're in effect using cites from the existing poor article, which has been POV warred by poor quality editing, as evidence the article does not have bona fide reliable sources elsewhere. Effectively your comment doesn't speak to notability at all; it only speaks to the point already agreed - that its existing style and citations are poor quality and need improving. That's not an argument for deletion by any AFD norm. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning is unfortunatley flawed and totally backwards, FT2, sorry, and totally irrelevant as you are ascribing incorrectly in your reply to me what deletion policy is--I don't think you're going to save this article by trying to reverse the requirements of deletion as this argument appears to be trying to do. Sorry. You need to add sources to fix the article. Independent sources, and not just argue for their existence or that the article should be re-written. ;) The article flat out based on present sourcing does suck and from lack of acceptable sourcing is not notable. Non-notable subjects in articles, under AFD, are deleted, and the responsibility of evidence if there is a lack of sourcing is on the folks who want to Keep to demonstrate the notability of the subject with evidence and hard facts, not implied to be found in the future evidence and rewriting of the article--AGF is policy, buyt AGF does not extend to sourcing, the lack thereof, or the future availability of sourcing. If we delete the article for one week, and then you find sourcing, Wikipedia and the world will not suffer for that. We will delete it, and you can take it through the deletion review process at WP:DRV afterwards like any other user has to, in this unfortunate circumstances, after getting sources to demonstrate it's notability. Sorry... and please, don't try to reverse analyze what I wrote to change the meaning of what I wrote. I flat out said we have a single source that I trust. That's not notable. I can't put it any simpler. I also tore down the other sources, yes, but that leaves one source: not notable. Not notable = delete, and you can take it through DRV after finding sources to prove notability. Perhaps time would be better spent finding independent sources now before the close of the AFD by an uninvolved admin, rather than spending time writing improbable defenses and restatements of what others wrote. In all the time you've been replying here at length and with great verbosity, the last edit to the article was the AFD nom itself. You could have added great sourcing in that time if it existed and posted a simple, "Heres 10 sources..." note here to terminate the AFD.

The previous edit warring over content ownership between yourself and HeadlyWhomever that was blocked as a result of contesting you is irrelevant for the purposes of this AFD or any future one on articles of this subject, and is just colorful background information and historical flavor. If a history of edit warring, flagrant ownership, and POV pushing were valid factors in AFD to discount possible deletions of articles, we'd never be able to delete any contested articles, like anything to do with Daniel Brandt or Israel. When we run an AFD, we look at the article today, based on available sources, facts, and knowledge of the notability of the subject as they stand today. Today, I see one source of worth by my standards, so I call non-notable on the subject. So, contrary to your assertation above that my arguement didn't touch on notability at all, it did. Your job if you want to keep this article before the AFD closes is to go in and add independent sourcing to it to prove the notability. Failing that, the closing admin per the consensus on this page today would have to be a simple Delete and Close. rootology (T) 12:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Headley's actions are irrelevant here, except that that's partly why the article is in the mess it is. I haven't enough interest in the topic to rewrite it, but I have worked on a large number of AFDs, and the main criteria is whether the topic is notable, not whether the article as it stands is well written:

1. Deletion policy - "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion... is preferable to deletion)... Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources... Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed [...] If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion [...]" (emphasis noted)
2. WP:AFD - "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion [...] If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." (emphasis in original)
3. Deletion guidelines for administrators - "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact ... are frequently discounted. For instance ... [i]f an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant."
4. WP:ATA - "Badly written: This kind of comment is based on the basis of the quality of the current article which may be poorly written, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject [...] In the Wiki model, an article that is poor now can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. In other words, the remedy for a messy article is cleanup under the Manual of Style, not deletion."

I'm not an expert, and this article needs one. That said nobody else is doing anything, and sources seem to exist, some from within the field, some outside it, and of differing standards, as normal for many subjects. Some descriptions will be from within the field, some from outside. Plus a lot of cites were dug up back in 2005-06 during the vandalism and POV warring that's dogged it. I'd be prepared to give it a brief amount of time to get rid of the worst of the OR/HOWTO aspect, but no promises, and I'd value others helping as well. I don't know what sources would be available and I wasn't planning to do more here than check and evidence that the usual AFD criteria are visibly met, with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. But it's doable, the sources clearly exist for it. Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Unfortunately, just one, again, and even simpler language... Add multiple independent non-trivial sources to the article to prove it's notability, or hope that a lot of non-canvassed folks show up to say "Keep" in 4 days... If the article is so important to you, perhaps cutting back on your other wiki-commitments for a day or so is advisable. Your endorsement alone is not sufficient to save it, because it doesn't trump consensus. No one user, you included, has any power to do that. :(

Also, when I keep saying that I don't feel it's a notable sub-subject based on the independent sourcing available today, why do you keep going back to article quality? I just happened to slam that as well, in addition to saying I think it's a fail for notability. Please, FT2, before replying again--go add some truly independent sources that explicitly talk about "NLP modeling" and I'll be happy to change my vote. rootology (T) 13:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

1/ Canvassing wouldn't be okay in any case. 2/ It's not so much "important" or not (marginal subject, involvement ages ago), more my attention got drawn to it on my talk page, and the direction this debate's taken isn't really following deletion norms, which would center on discussing actual evidence of notability (via discussion of reliable sources) and encyclopedic quality. Either way we basically agree that good sources need adding, and inappropriate content needs removing. My belief is that this article could be well written based on sources, and I've dug up a fair range of credible, reliable, sources to evidence that writing an encyclopedic article is possible. My concern about editing it myself is that some users indicate a personal agenda, or a belief in a conspiracy that's got a personal element, so it would probably be better if someone else does the necessary remedial work, to avoid that issue spreading. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, what makes you think articles like this, constitute a reliable source? The guy who wrote it may have got published in a proper peer-reviewed journal (though actually I suspect it is no such thing), but he is the same as this person. Pure bunk. Peter Damian (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The journals referenced include the APA's own journal, and another which seems to be a highly regarded journal by a well known academic house that is peer reviewed and names its editorial panel online. The other sources - encyclopedia mentions, professional manuals from other fields, and the like, also evidence multiple significant coverage in independent reliable sources.

The journal you name also looks to be genuine but not indexed. For example, it has a dedicated editorial board that it publicly lists online [19], its website describes a formal editorial process, it is run by someone who seems to be recognized in the field and has a number of highly cited articles in other indexed journals [go to PubMed and search for Author: Figley CR]. Taken together, publications like these are "reliable sources". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Non notable, doesn't deserve unique article. Read the article three times. First time thought it was a spoof. Still think its dodgy IMMHO. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd rewrite it, but I have stopped most content work due to other wiki-commitments. This would be a major topic to take up. But AFD is quick enough to comment at. The main test for deletion is WP:NOT, and the degree of coverage and mentions of the topic in reliable sources. As a topic, this easily meets site criteria, community policies, and AFD norms for "keep and cleanup", evidenced above. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and use the salvageable bits in the Neuro-linguistic programming. Mostly poorly referenced, represents junk science as facts. Better to have a good paragraph in the main article than a subarticle filled with junk Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, new-age snake oil promotion. Having a separate article on this amounts to giving undue weight to fringe science. Bishonen | talk 09:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC).

• • Comment I agree with delete, but "new-age snake-oil promotion" is not a reason to delete... it could be notable new-age snake-oil promotion... --Paul McDonald (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply to comment: No, you misunderstand me. If the article was merely about new-age snake-oil promotion, you would have a point. My delete reason is that the article is new-age snake-oil promotion. See? Perfectly good reason. Bishonen | talk 12:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC).
      • Ahhhh... so it is because the article itself is a promotion, how-to, or potential advertising!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
        • • • That's it. Do I get indefinitely blocked now?[20] Bishonen | talk 15:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC).

If the existing article is a valid topic with coverage in reliable sources, but currently it's written in a way that is basically incapable of being fixed, and needs ripping out and rewriting, then "delete and rewrite" would be appropriate. The line between that and plain "cleanup" is grey and not really an issue, same end result. As a norm we don't delete if there is good evidence of appropriate reliable sources, and cleanup and fixing problems would do the job. My main contention would be related to notability, not current quality. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Sidebar and to quote Terry Pratcett in respect of his taking even snake-oil salesmen seriously in respect of this early onset Alzheimer "I've never seen a rusty snake"

• Delete - I've read all the arguments here and the one's for delete seem to me more convincing than the others. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete There's nothing to merge--this is just an attempt to create an additional article on the same topic. I too would have started elsewhere, but this is one of the unjustifiable articles among them. No individual specific content. All the references are general. Not even enough to support a wiktionary entry for the term. Some of the additional citations given will do very well to support an article on NLP, but not this one. It in addition is promotional in purpose, but if there were content worth an article, it could be rewritten--but I do not see that there is. DGG (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Talk about WP:UNDUE! It has its own daughter boxes, guides, templates, and then has language as thick as a whale omlette. Its lead sentence could mean anything at all, and then half of the article, as it exists currently (counting non-graphical elements as "article") is a quote. Not only does one not get an idea of what NLP is supposed to be, but one in fact comes to the conclusion that it could be anything from semiotics to gestalt. I'm sure it has ardent adherents, and I suppose some of them are Wikipedians, but there is no objective description of it so much as a believer's reiteration of holy mantras from it. To the degree that it is a division of a division of neurological theory, it can be described in full elsewhere. To split and then to lovingly overflow with words is to both distort and to maintain what is, in effect, a POV article. That is a violation of the deletion guideline. Geogre (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Section Break 1

• Keep. What is painful about this is that it seems to be the continuation of a grudge match between some folks, including the nominator, and FT2. They don't like FT2, so they make poor arguments (or no arguments, see "snake oil" above) for deletion and ignore rational arguments for keeping the article. I can't say I understand why FT2 hasn't decided to actually improve the article with the list of sources he's found, because that would certainly change the math on this AfD. Poor strategy on his part that will most likely lead to this article being deleted. Its a shame that personal antipathy between editors, developed on meta issues, has been taken into the realm of content.

• Looking at the potential sources listed above - academic papers, published in various places and available through PubMed, are described along with an encyclopedia as "self help books." Inexplicably, otherwise intelligent editors follow along without checking to see if that description makes sense. Sticky Parkin seems to take it on faith that Peter Damian is accurate describing these pieces as promotional and self help, when it doesn't appear that this is at all the case. Rootology's difficultly phrased argument appears to boil down to "When I ignore all the sources but one, there is only one left! One source = delete!" along with repeated references to notability. It bears pointing out that notability is a guideline, not a policy, and if an encyclopedia article can be reasonably written and sourced on a subject of limited notability (see article 2.5M Am_(digraph)) it should stay.

• We don't delete articles that need improvement but can be improved, we improve them. Any editors commenting here should understand that Peter Damian has a long history of attacking and harassing FT2, for which he has been blocked multiple times (including again, today, indefinitely by MBisanz). Avruch ^T 15:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Editors commenting here should in that case also understand that Avruch has a long history of creating drama[21] around anybody who has the temerity to criticise FT2's actions.[22] Bishonen | talk 15:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC).

Come on, you can do better than that. Avruch ^T 15:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Defending persecuted editors is the best use for my temerity. Peter Damian has been unblocked per WP:AN consensus, by the way. Bishonen | talk 19:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC).

• Now that I'm less likely to be bothered by Peter Damian for not agreeing with him in a way he finds acceptable, I'm going to say we may as well Delete and merge the key elements of this article back into the main NLP page. I'm not sure NLP needs only one page, but Peter did not choose too badly in making this a target for deletion. But my word, the 'holy war' mentality on both sides! AlexTiefling (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Please, FT2, could you reply to Peter Damian's question above: "FT2, could you also confirm that you have no COI here? I believe you claimed once that you had studied in California with these gurus and you have a Master Practitioner certificate? .. can you confirm you have no current business involvement in this? "[23] Apologies if you already have confirmed somewhere above that you have no COI. I'm having a bit of trouble taking in the whole of this long and complicated page. Bishonen | talk 15:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• FT2 replied to this on his talk page. naerii 16:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Complete load of old bollox. No one researching anything is going to understand a word of it, or want to. Get rid. Giano (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, must agree with Bishonen, Geogre and others here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, weight of argument certainly drives at deletion. Hiding T 16:41, 14 August 2008 (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.