Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABCT Couples Special Interest Group


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

ABCT Couples Special Interest Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Subunit of a notable organization, but not independently notable; should be merged to Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies per WP:CLUB. MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A similar AfD discussion was recently held about another subunit of the ABCT, namely Articles for deletion/ABCT GLBT Special Interest Group, and the result was "redirect to Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies". I agreed with that decision, based on WP:CLUB, which states that "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." So I redirected the Couples group article to the ABCT article as well; however, my redirect was contested so I am bringing it here for discussion.
 * An editor has been adding references to try to demonstrate notability, so I invite readers to evaluate them. My own analysis is that they are either self-referential, or else have little or nothing to do with the interest group; also, note that the article credited to the New York Times is actually to a Times blog. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is no coverage about this special interest group. All but the NY Times are unreliable sources.  The NY Times item, although a blog, is still within the editorial framework of the NY Times and as such, is a reliable source; however, the article makes no mention whatsoever of this special interest group. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2010 (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.