Talk:Ericksonian hypnosis

from VfD:

Maybe there should be an article on this topic, but the current one is gibberish. --68.20.232.73 23:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Total BS. Binadot 23:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I bet it's BS, too, and the article suffers from maximum POV difficulty. But it's encyclopedic. --Yath 04:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * This is the sort of thing that makes people whine about deletionists. I cleaned it up a bit. It's not really our place to rule on its validity as a therapy or not (I think hypnotherapy is pretty BS at best, damaging at worst, but that's neither here nor there), and with 9,400 google hits I think it is notable enough to have at least some sort of entry (preferably one which distinguishs it from other forms of hypnotherapy). I broke it down into a NPOV stub, I think it can be keeped. --Fastfission 17:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Merge with Milton Erickson. If information on the technique ever gets expanded, then the redirect can again become a separate article. Jallan 16:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect -FZ 17:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Merged. Redirect.  Rossami 04:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and list on Cleanup, although I can't help build it up until after this week. --Zigger 16:51, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
 * Comment. Deleting this article would not prevent a new article on the subject with different content being written. There is no need for the article to go to cleanup rather than being deleted in order to enable Zigger to write an improved version. Similarly, if the current content is merged with Milton Erickson, which seems to be the consensus now, Zigger or anyone can at any time in the future expand material in Milton Erickson and, if it starts getting too big, move the newly written Eickson hpynosis material back into its own article. Jallan 15:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * While I agree with Jallan's points above, deletion removes attribution & history, which are both important parts of wikipedia. VFD exists because we don't take deletion lightly. OTOH, the content is probably too misleading to merge anywhere else. --Zigger 18:51, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
 * merge&redirect Chuck 19:11, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion