Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anchoring (NLP)


 * 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.  Spinning Spark  20:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Anchoring (NLP)
...Bxxt:



This page is the landing spot for all NLP-related AfD notices. We now return you to your normal deletion request ....


 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Few, poor sources. Other tagged concerns not addressed after a more than adequate period of time. Serious notability concerns due to the fact that this is a concept from a technique described as "pseudoscientific" and "discredited" in its main article. Famousdog (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from much the same problems as the Anchoring article. There are far too many separate articles all saying very similar things that all rest upon the shaky foundation of a discredited pseudoscientific pyramid scheme. This is not science.

Famousdog (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Considering that these articles have not seen any improvement in the last few years, and that contributors have been unable to generate reasonable content for these subjects even in the more limited scope of the main article on Neuro-linguistic Programming, I have to agree, they should be deleted. I would encourage those who see useful content in here to merge it back into the main article, which is also in a bit of sorry state, posthaste.  However, the fact that NLP is pseudoscience is not, in itself, reason to delete these articles-- many pseudoscientific disciplines, such as astrology, have generated a great deal of encyclopedic material. siafu (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed that NLP being pseudoscientific marketing waffle is no reason to delete these entries, that was just me sounding off! Yes, any useful material (cough) should be merged with the main NLP article. There is no need for all these project-like subpages (or the infobox) on various aspects of NLP that are supported only by primary, unreliable and non-independent sources. Famousdog (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Merging actual information about NLP back into the main article at the moment is a waste of time; it would merely be removed by those convinced that NLP is a "shaky foundation of a discredited pseudoscientific pyramid scheme. This is not science." (citation required) One of the most interesting things about this on-going slow motion edit war is the insistence by editors attacking NLP that NLP is not science and is a pseudo-science, when NLP has never claimed to be a science; the claim made by NLP is that it is magical! Good faith leads me to believe that they know of a different NLP than that the article was about years ago. htom (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment What you refer to as a "on-going slow motion edit war" is actually how Wikipedia works. If you have verifiable, independent, reliable sources that corroborate the "information" that you think I (or other editors) would "merely" remove or that we are somehow grossly mistaken about the "real" NLP, then WP:PROVEIT. Famousdog (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:UNDUE.
 * The Anchoring (NLP) article currently has total of three (very poor) sources.
 * Meta-programs has two sources that actually go to a commercial site: jobEQ - Advanced HRM Solutions (not good).
 * Therapeutic metaphor has one cite that looks like a red herring of legitimacy.
 * Positive and negative (NLP) has zero cites and the reference section is a list of books by the inventors of NLP (Wikipedia should probably not be used as a book store).
 * In sum..."If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Delete the lot. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Updated ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added History of neuro-linguistic programming and several other articles having looked at their rather weak references sections. Again, any "useful" information from these pages could be easily merged with the main NLP article. They do not need or deserve separate articles and I am concerned that these articles are simply being used as content forks. I hope nobody minds me adding these after the fact, but exactly the same issues apply. One of these articles has been marked as refimprove since 2007!!! Famousdog (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly WP:UNDUE, and badly sourced. There are elements of WP:FRINGE and WP:WalledGarden around all this, too. But at the root, these things have hardly any support from proper sources (primary and commercial have to do instead). Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Regards of the status of NLP, there is no particular notability to these individual concepts within it, and the terms are not sufficiently likely search points to be worth even a redirect.  DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I mind, but it won't make any difference; what good faith I had in your motives has pretty much gone walkabout. Any more additions you want to make? //strangely unsigned, noticed now. htom (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)//
 * If you're so concerned about it, relist it to grant the full time period again; I doubt anyone would object. Just being snarky doesn't do anyone any good. siafu (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it encourages me in my belief that there are a number of editors who have "bought in" to the belief that NLP is a pseudo-science scam, rather than a artful psychological treatment methodology. I can't disprove your beliefs, and won't waste the time or annoy you with an attempt. If you were curious you could "read for the enemy"; I can wait. htom (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Snarky it is, then. siafu (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have pointed you at Frogs into Princes, I suppose. htom (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, OtterSmith, there are other additions I would like to make and already have done. Stop assuming bad faith and making presumptions about my motives and beliefs. The Wikipedia community as a whole has had all the time in the world to improve these articles and hasn't. This suggests to me that the topic(s) are simply not particularly notable. Why therefore do we have tens of poorly written and poorly sourced articles on non-notable topics when it seems one (or a couple) well-sourced article would do? I'm grateful that you "won't waste the time or annoy (us) with an attempt" to "disprove (our) beliefs," but making snarky comments because you can't be arsed to do the requisite work to bring these articles up to the standard by which all WP articles are judged is wasting our time and annoying us. Famousdog (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete broadly for the reasons given above. All the relevant material can be covered at the main NLP page, where there are actually some reasonable third party independent secondary sources. As has been noted above, the NLP-related pages fail on just about every policy criteria for inclusion. ISTB351   (talk)   (contributions)   22:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with htom and, I'll also clearly state this: NLP is a methodology, not a science. That Guy, From That Show! 02:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no such thing as "a science". There is just science. If NLP was an effective "methodology", then there would be some science to support it. I can't see any decent evidence in any of these ... [counts] ... 11 articles. There is some decent science in the main article, but its invariably pouring cold water on NLP, not supporting it. I'm interested: Exactly which bit of OtterSmith's argument do you agree with? The bit where he's assuming bad faith on my part, or the bit where he's just being snarky and wasting our time with rhetoric? Famous dog 08:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was because of this?
 * "prev) 03:15, 8 June 2012‎ Famousdog (talk"
 * Not a lot of assumption needed. htom (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (At the risk of breaching WP:NOTAFORUM,) WP:AGF "is the assumption that ... most people try to help the project, not hurt it." The crucial words here are the project and my actions are guided by a desire to improve WP by ridding it of several very substandard articles that repetitively reproduce poorly-sourced material and that I think bring the integrity of WP into disrepute. Within the bounds of WP:CIVIL I don't have to maintain good faith towards NLP or practitioners of NLP. Famous dog 08:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Reframing
In cognitive therapy, "reframing" means cognitive reframing. If this article is deleted, could the closer please redirect to cognitive reframing? (Sorry if this comment's in the wrong spot.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2012 (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.