Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy


 * 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 redirect to Diana Fosha.  So Why  06:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a textbook chapter, written from the POV of a supporter of the movement. I am unable to edit this into an encycopedia article, but I will withdraw the afd if someone can manage to do it. I hope that will be possible, for there are sufficient references that the topic should be covered  DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. See the article's talk page for a previous discussion of these issues. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is a WP:AFC, which has passed through, as it is beautifully written and well sourced. However, there is a number of problems with it. scope_creep (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , you are probably going to have to explain what you think those problems are, otherwise your view is likely to be discounted when this discussion is brought to a close. See WP:DISCUSSAFD. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was called away. Still. Delete regarding the article:
 * It has its own Institute: You only have an Institute, when you are looking to advance something which is new, or sell something.  Here is the Sweden site.  . San Diego . These last two sites are cheap wordpress sites. Generally speaking most health sites, are high end, as they care about about the people who are reading it. I know Wordpres has 29%, but it is usually cheap sites. The Swedish one looks as though it was thrown up during lunch.
 * Why is it not accepted by other country health system. I checked several in Europe, and it doesnt seem to be available.
 * Gbooks has few reference. Most seem to point back to Fosha. It has been on the go for 17 years, supposedely.
 * Most online refs seem to point to Fosha or the Institute. Most CiteSeer, Researchgate etc, refs are linked to Fosha.
 * No large American or European unversity seems to have any articles on it, which means its outside the meanstream.
 * Although it is well referenced most of the ref don't have a support structure behind them, and seemed to wrap established psychotherapy procedures into AEDP. Out of the 56 refs, 11 of them are Fosha. Within the article there are many words which are not defined in the Oxford English dictionary. There is a possible reason for that, though, snake oil salesman.
 * Generally speaking, when you look at health, which is even true in the NHS in Scotland, whether it relates to a surgical procedure, drug or some new technique, it tends to be presented in a manner of the highest quality, is spoken about by everybody, peer reviewed all over the shop, and everybody is absolutely sure it is the best, and everybody is sure that is the way to go. You know it is genuine, or it is as possible to get. Here you see almost the opposite. It is not presented properly, there doesn’t seems to be contradictory views, there is only a few people talking about it, and it looks as almost as it is being sold, re: training on Swedish site, and there is not huge coverage, by anybody. It doesn't have that ring of authenticity. Look the cryo microscopy guys for a converse argument. Admittedly, they are nobel prize winners, and its a physical technique, and may not translate but look at the GBook hits. Large coverage all over the world.
 * scope_creep (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A sure test of acceptance would be if there was an entry for the technique in the American manual of psychotherapy, or psychology. That would mean it was accepted by the wider community, and it was standard procedure. scope_creep (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the "American manual of psychotherapy"? I can't find a publication by that name. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: I have notified the psychology wikiproject of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, I don't what it is called, or who wrote it. There was a program on Radio 4 about it, here in the UK, sometime before the summer. I remember listening to do, how it came about, how it hadn't changed in decades, until quite recently when it was rapidly updated. It seems to list accepted fundamental therapies, similar to, e.g. Greys for anatomy, a standard. I remember now, they talking about the treatment for Schizophrenia I think, how it changed recently, and how the book needed to be updated. Computing were involved in it somehow. Only reason I remember. scope_creep (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It could be this they were discussing, which means I am well wide of the beam, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders but I think it was treatments. I will do a search of Radio 4. scope_creep (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was about to suggest that you might mean the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, . Cordless Larry (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Transwiki and Redirect This topic seems marginally notable; it is discussed in the review Gold 2011, Attachment theory and psychotherapy integration: An introduction and review of the literature and had several pages in the book Unlocking the Emotional Brain, published by Routledge. The article is well-written for a chapter in a monograph. But the article runs afoul of WP standards by being full of synthesis WP:SYNTH and original research WP:OR. While many of the references are secondary sources, few are both secondary and actually discuss AEDP--Gold 2011 is one of the exceptions. Taking out the all the synthesis and OR, a big job, would leave a stub or perhaps start class article.  That might be enough for a marginal keep. But pragmatically, it might be best to migrate this well-written chapter to Wikiversity and redirect to Diana_Fosha and concentrate on a solidly sourced summary paragraph there. --Mark viking (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is perhaps worth noting that the several entries associated in the GBook reference, have articles, e.g. Coherence therapy. All apart from IPNB. scope_creep (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Having read it a couple of days later, this seems the best course. scope_creep (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs more discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 09:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Diana Fosha, per rationale given by User:Mark viking above, until the article can be rewritten to better follow Wikipedia guidelines (especially without the WP:POV and WP:SYNTH mentioned above). Like any of the many other "brand-name psychotherapies" (see, e.g., ), the subject itself is a POV; it can be challenging to adhere to WP:NPOV when writing about the psychotherapies, but it can be done. The easiest way to adhere to WP:NPOV when writing about the psychotherapies is to include ample explanation, either in a separate "Criticism" section or interspersed within existing sections, of how practitioners and researchers of other forms of psychotherapy view this particular form of psychotherapy—what they consider to be its strengths and weaknesses, theoretical and empirical (this strategy of mutual criticism of psychotherapies is employed, e.g., in the classic textbook: ); if such perspectives are not available in published form, then that is a good indicator that it is too soon for an article on this subject, because without including such external perspectives it is not possible to present a sufficiently neutral POV on the subject (that is also not WP:OR). I think it could be shown (as has already been suggested by others above) that the subject of this article is as notable as many of the other psychotherapies in our list of psychotherapies. Perhaps in the future we will not have so many different psychotherapies (see, e.g., ), but we are not there yet. Biogeographist (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the author of the method, Diana Fosha; not independently notable. The article states:
 * AEDP was developed by Diana Fosha in her 2000 book The Transforming Power of Affect: A Model for Accelerated Change, and expanded on in later publications.


 * The approach's conception and development is all traced to Fosha, so two separate articles are not required. In the current form, the article is WP:ADVOCACY and is not suitable for inclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree with User:K.e.coffman's claim that the subject is not notable (although obviously I agree that a redirect is appropriate), and I would like to see more justification from User:K.e.coffman for this claim. Not even the nominator claimed that notability was a problem—the nominator's cited rationale for AFD was style and POV, not notability. A search for "AEDP"+experiential+therapy in Google Books, Google Scholar, PsycINFO, and other databases seems to me to return enough sources to meet notability guidelines. Particularly in Google Books and Google Scholar there are plenty of secondary sources. Also, how could Diana Fosha be notable if AEDP were not notable, when AEDP is precisely what Fosha is notable for? There are reasons to redirect, but lack of notability does not seem to be one of them. Biogeographist (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Diana Fosha per and 's well-reasoned arguments. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not oppose a redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be OK with me also  DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 14 October 2017 (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.