Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for Contextual Behavioral Science


 * 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   keep. The discussion centres on adequate reliable sources doing more than mention the organisation in pasing. As the organisation is widely mentioned, often with detail, in reliable and independent sources, the argument to delete is not met, though the article would benefit from more secure sourcing.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  14:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Association for Contextual Behavioral Science

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Dubious notability; author removed PROD but still lacks independent sources to confirm enduring notability. Zzarch (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The author did not remove PROD for this article, I did. I disagree that this article meets criteria for deletion which is why I removed PROD in the first place. --Tzadkiel43 (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Additionally, it would seem that ACBS is notable enough to be mentioned within the article for Behaviorism itself... see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism#21st-century_behavior_analysis --Tzadkiel43 (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood. If you could find independent sources confirming the general notability of this organization, I would support keeping. Zzarch (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was able to find a few independent sources which make mention of ACBS: "http://moritaschool.com/content/links", "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831449/", "http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/4/398.short". The following google scholar search brought up 55 hits: "http://scholar.google.com/scholar?lr=lang_en&q=%22association+for+contextual+behavioral+science%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14" --Tzadkiel43 (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. Voting for Keep then, but you may wish to integrate some third party source into the article itself. Zzarch (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I have found no independent sources mentioning this group. From what I can tell the links above are all from advocates, with one source only mentioning this group while citing the Wikipedia page. Furthermore, the account creating this article may be the same Steven C. Hayes who founded the therapy it advocates.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems a valid WP:COI concern, and I am withdrawing my vote for now to see if anyone can provide sources that clearly come from neutral and non-advocating parties. Zzarch (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How about this for a neutral or non-advocating party? The Association for Behavioral Analysis International mentioned ACBS in 2007 in Vol. 30, No 7 of its newsletter; scroll down that page and look for the heading "Building Bridges: Collaboration with Other Organizations," and then look for the mention of ACBS as one of eight organizations ABAI is interested in "building bridges and sharing opportunities with." Some of the other organizations in this list are quite well known, e.g. the American Psychology Association, so it is not as if phantoms are being made up here. This plus the University of Nevado, Reno source that I mentioned in my Keep vote lower on on this page are examples of numerous brief mentions on the web of ACBS by reputable and neutral (in the sense of not directly affiliated) third parties. Whole Sight (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It's an important, fastly expanding organization. Branches (chapters) in many countries - see here for the Dutch wing. I'll see if I can add more. It's hard to find independent sources for whatever group. It's their activities that are mentioned. See also American Association of Christian Counselors, American Psychoanalytic Association, or American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry to name just a few (not to mention Muslim Association for the Advancement of Science, American Society for Photobiology, or Maharashtra Academy of Sciences. Try to find independent sources for these! And their pages contain much less information. If this page is deleted, you have to delete plenty of others.--Queeste (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I completely agree here. Another excellent example is the Association for Behavior Analysis International.  Only 3 citations, and all of them are from internal sources. 2 of them are from their own publications and the 3rd is from the website of one of their special interest groups. The latest version of the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science now has 9 references, 5 of which appear to me to be independent sources.  If that is not acceptable, then surely all of these other groups must be considered for deletion as well.--Tzadkiel43 (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The notion of deleting at this point seems driven by a single person who has chosen to selectively ignore a great deal of evidence pointing in favor of notability. To give just one more instance of such evidence, the University of Nevada, Reno, has a press release on its web site detailing the 2010 annual conference for ACBS - including a rough count of number of conference participants, etc. etc. Yes, UNR is where Steven C. Hayes teaches; but on the other hand, UNR's existence as a university is not in question, and for this press release to be dismissed as untrustworthy in its description of this ACBS event as a significant one within the field of academic psychology, one would have to conceive of a grand conspiracy theory of some sort. I would say it is up to anyone still proposing deletion to at this point prove the various cited sources are unreliable. The link to the UNR press release is is here. Whole Sight (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC) — Whole Sight (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Ah, I see someone has gone to the effort of SPA'ing me as a "single purpose account." I wouldn't agree. I've had few edits outside this page, yes, but I do have other interests, e.g. I spotted and flagged a blatantly promotional article for KSwiss, the sneaker manufacturer, that was then removed; my interest in that case was tennis. Very suspicious I'm sure! Check me out a bit more carefully, please, before making unwarranted assumptions. Whole Sight (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Queeste and Tzadkiel have few edits on Wikipedia and a nice chunk of those edits relate to this therapy and its proponents. The therapy itself has some established notability, but notability is not transferable to anything related to the therapy.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment on comment Are we going ad hominem? The Devil's Advocate's comment is a lie. I do have few edits, right. I'm Dutch speaking and active on the Dutch Wiki. But a nice chunk of my edits having to do with this therapy??? Exactly 1 to be precise: it's about Steven Hayes. What did I add: a category! Big thing, no? Check my Dutch edits if you want to have an impression of my background; be my guest. And still: it's ad hominem and thus besides the question. It's an insult.--Queeste (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am clever enough to actually look at your contributions you know, including those on the Dutch Wikipedia. You have made mostly insignificant contributions there (a whole lot of redirects to articles about beer stuck out) and, once more, you were making a lot of contributions to articles related to this therapy right as you started editing there. As far as only making "1 edit" you actually have made several, though you may think someone is not going to check up on that. You have added wikilinks for the Steven Hayes article to other articles, added information about RFT, made edits on experiential avoidance that support the general contention of ACT, and added the website for the subject of this article to another page. All of that on the English Wikipedia. Edits on this particular subject are your first edits in both areas of Wikipedia. Do you have any affiliation with the proponents of the therapy?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to move the discussion back to the merits of the article itself? I hardly think that my relatively few edits (most of which concern naval issues, not sure how you came to the conclusion that a "nice chunk" relate to the therapy or its proponents) compared to yours has much to do with the points that were raised concerning the presence of other articles covering organizations without independent sources.  The argument that you made concerning the therapy's notability not applying to the organization also applies to Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies and Association for Behavior Analysis International. If these articles are acceptable, why not Association for Contextual Behavioral Science?  Or any of the other organizations that Queeste mentioned that you did not address?--Tzadkiel43 (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is important an admin reviewing this understands the apparent biases of those suggesting it be kept. Your points are ultimately not very significant. There are many articles lacking sources, but notability does not specifically require that sources be present in the article. So long as independent sources exist supporting its notability the article is suitable for inclusion. However, listing other articles that you think should or should not be deleted is a distraction. If any of those other articles lack sufficient notability for an independent article then those would need to be deleted as well. What matters is whether this article has notability that can be established with significant mentions in independent reliable sources.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We can agree to disagree about the relevance of the other similar articles currently in existence, I think. Can you be specific as to exactly what kinds of independent sources you consider suitable?  A google search for "Association for Contextual Behavioral Science" returns 389,000 results.  --Tzadkiel43 (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Raw number of hits are irrelevant. The top results I find are all directly-affiliated or closely-affiliated with the subject of the article. After ten pages of such sources Google stops listing them because the rest are apparently not much different.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to get the impression that you're really not reading what I am typing here. I asked you directly what kinds of independent sources you consider suitable, and you offered no input on that. I'm going to go ahead and add this to the debate:  ACBS is a rapidly expanding notable international organization of over 5,000 members on par with other organizations with their own articles. ACBS was recognized back in 2007 by the Association for Behavior Analysis International as a noteworthy organization. Time magazine ran a piece on Steven C. Hayes in which the ACBS website is listed as a resource for locating ACT therapists. Finally, I noticed that in addition to calling for the deletion of this article you've flagged the biography for Steven C. Hayes as problematic as well.  Since you've ignored the other articles which I have pointed out have the exact same problems as the article under discussion, I think I'm going to have to point out a possible bias on your part, The Devil&#39;s Advocate, as you seem to be targeting Steven C. Hayes and the organization that he is associated with.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzadkiel43 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I know I'm asked to keep focused on the article and not the person, but just this: I know (more than) a few things about behaviorism. And yes, RFT is recent behaviorism, so I do have some knowledge. I wrote more on behaviorism, token economy, delay discounting, etc and tens of times more about beer, religion, history, ... So what? Only people not knowing anything about the subject are valid? If you want to start a discussion about beer, only they who know about wine are neutral or objective? Just had to get rid of this. Now the article: essentially the other mentioned organisations have no more "independent" sources acknowledging their importance: American Association of Christian Counselors, American Psychoanalytic Association, or American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry to name just a few (not to mention Muslim Association for the Advancement of Science, American Society for Photobiology, or Maharashtra Academy of Sciences. And these are just a few. Delete all?--Queeste (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am a member of the organization and perhaps not unbiased, but I want to say that the organization is very important for professionals (both clinicians and scientists) working within behavior analysis and the work will benefit people in general. The area as well as the organization is expanding rapidly why I would say it is of importance to keep the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.240.144 (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment on the irony of this discussion within Wikipedia What would normally be a superabundance of evidence that ACBS is a notable organization is effectively being held hostage by a single Wikipedia editor who has failed to answer a direct question as to what he, personally, would consider acceptable evidence. Meanwhile, outside of Wikipedia, we have a book reviewer in the very well-known Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis citing the Wikipedia entry on Behaviorism as evidence that behavior analysis as a field is evolving in new and important ways - with ACBS being part of this evolution! This article can be found [here] and the pertinent passage is as follows - the italics are mine to add emphasis:

Leaving the irony of the Wikipedia cite aside, what ought to be especially telling for this discussion is Friman's comment that even "cursory searches" in the databases and libraries he mentions validate his argument that behavior analysis is evolving and that ACT (sponsored by ACBS) is part of this. And in fact anyone interested in this discussion can undertake such a cursory search for themselves: specifically, search within the recent literature of behavior analysis (2011 will be fine though you can easily go back 10 or 20 years) for mentions of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy or Relational frame theory. Then start researching the professional affiliations for the researchers involved. Surprise. . . you will start seeing ACBS membership frequently mentioned.

I invite anyone who still proposes this article for deletion to undertake the above research. It would take perhaps 20 minutes. It might convince you to let go of any doubts you still harbor. Whole Sight (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact it is only mentioning the group because it is mentioned on Wikipedia is exactly the problem. I have yet to find any example of this group receiving significant mentions from people who are not affiliated with the group or the therapy. Seems the group itself is not sufficiently notable to warrant their own article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you not read my full comment? Fridman is not mentioning ACBS "because it is mentioned on Wikipedia." Please re-read my comment in its entirety and respond accordingly.   Whole Sight (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I confess I did not read everything, though what I didn't read before isn't anymore helpful now than the part I did read when I made my comment. The remainder of your comments make the exact kind of argument that I already addressed. Notability is not inherited. Just because a notable therapy is connected to a group, does not mean that group has notability sufficient for an article as well. I have no objection to including the information in articles about the therapy and related ideas where it is sufficiently significant and relevant to the subject, but an independent article on this group would not be justified.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying. In response to your objection that notability here is "inherited," please see the section on "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations" within []. This section states that "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." I'd say ACBS meets the first of these two criteria easily: it has international activities and scope. I also think it meets the second criteria, on the basis of frequent mentions in news bulletins from major universities, some of which are already cited here. Is there an objection to such cites as somehow unreliable? Whole Sight (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources have to be independent and so far you have definitely not met that standard.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way is a new bulletin from a major university not independent? And surely you mean to suggest that you feel the article does not meet that standard, not a participant in this discussion? Tzadkiel43 (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are more independent sources which mention ACBS, in addition to the ones that have already been posted and been ignored: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2686981/ ; http://www.div12.org/PsychologicalTreatments/treatments/chronicpain_act.html ; http://www.sheknows.com/health-and-wellness/articles/838097/6-ways-to-conquer-your-biggest-fears ; http://www.scientificmindfulness.com/2010/07/acbs-2010-interview-with-robyn-walser.html ; http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032210-104449 ; http://www.unr.edu/nevada-today/news/2010/nevada-hosts-international-third-wave-psychology-conference ; http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Alhassan/Hand%20book%20on%20research%20in%20educational%20communication/ER5849x_C006.fm.pdf ; http://crankyshrink.blogspot.com/2010/04/eighth-world-conference-on-act-rft-and.html ; http://www.spiritualcompetency.com/scrcQuiz.aspx?courseID=44 Tzadkiel43 (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Independent means a source that is not connected to the subject. Two of those sources are papers co-written by Steven C. Hayes himself, the creator of the therapy the organization advocates. Eric J. Fox is a member of the ACBS so the pdf you gave is not independent. Joel Guarna, one of the bloggers you cited, is another member. Several of the other sources are focused in the same limited field of "mindfulness" or "spiritual" therapy. One source is just a faculty member at a university writing about the group having an event at that university. The only decent sources you gave make only trivial mentions of the group in connection with the ACT therapy. Again, the therapy is notable, but that does not automatically pass on to the organization advocating it.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The mention of ACBS as the sponsoring organization for Acceptance and Commitment Therapy on the National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices web site is not a trivial mention, but rather, quite detailed and specific, as follows: "ACT development is guided by the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS), which can provide referrals to professionals in a specific area of interest. ACBS also has a worldwide system of recognized trainers (http://www.contextualpsychology.org/act_trainers) who are available to assist agencies interested in implementation." The source here is a department of a U.S. government agency that undertakes strict reviews of particular therapies, including a history ("Implementation History") of those who advocate said therapies - hence the very material and pertinent reference to ACBS. And the very nature of these reviews is that they be independent and reliable - as stated on the About NREPP page, "The National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP) is a searchable online registry of mental health and substance abuse interventions that have been reviewed and rated by independent reviewers." So that is one source for notability right there that is already included in the article. One additional source will meet the criteria for "multiple sources" and thus for notability of ACBS. Whole Sight (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Trivial mentions are not enough. Multiple trivial mentions are still trivial mentions. All the independent sources mentioned have been talking about ACT and then saying basically "see here for practitioners of this therapy" without any significant information on the organization. You have made a strong argument for possibly making this a redirect to the ACT therapy page, but your argument is not strong enough for having an independent article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If a redirect to the ACT therapy page makes more sense within the strictures of Wikipedia, then I'm all for that. I think that would satisfy (or ought to) anyone who comes to Wikipedia wondering what ACBS is & hoping to find information on it. Whole Sight (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A redirect to ACT misses the point: ACBS is not just ACT. It stands for a specific kind of science and psychology, including ACT and RFT, but not only these. It's the unifying whole above all these and that's what makes it worth while mentioning. But I'm aware this isn't an argument that will impress opponents. This discussion has nothing to do with objectivity and neutrality: an international organization with thousands of members not being encyclopedic? If there would be such an international organization for believers in tooth fairies (not sure the writing is correct), I would vote "keep" (as I voted for keeping the page on reincarnation therapy on the Dutch pages a year or so ago). No mather how few scientific papers mention it. But, I believe this discussion is leading nowhere. I'm afraid the conclusion will be: delete, and with it 50 or more other organizations, already having a page (same standards for every organization, no?). Best,--Queeste (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you have to provide an independent reliable source to back up those claims for notability. An organization can claim it has as many members as it likes and assign them any level of credibility, but we should not just take their word for it. So far it seems the few independent sources mentioning it, sources of questionable reliability, only mention it in the context of ACT and the mention is only to note it as a way to find people who practice the therapy. That is not enough to establish a case for an independent article. As I said, it seems reasonable enough to use those as an argument for a redirect, but nothing more.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think one source of disagreement here has been that those who have been pushing for a separate article on ACBS (including me) are not familiar enough with how Wikipedia operates. How do you get volunteer editors together to create a work that at least gestures towards reliability? By setting standards that call for other published sources that are deemed generally reliable by their nature to have "vetted" topics first. This is not the only criterion, of course, but it is a very large one. I agree with Queeste that ACBS's goals are larger than ACT, just as Relational frame theory is larger in scope than ACT. The problem is, from the Wikipedia point of view, that nothing has yet been written by third parties (e.g. newspapers, magazines, etc.) focusing primarily on ACBS and its goals rather than simply mentioning its sponsorship of ACT; thus there is no source independent enough with which to support a separate article. There is nothing wrong with this per se - it is simply how Wikipedia is forced to operate if it wishes to rely on volunteer effort. This does not resolve Queeste's objection that many other organizations already having Wikipedia articles which fail to meet notability standards - but that is really a separate issue; more a matter of articles slipping through the cracks than a positive support for an article on ACBS. So again I'd reiterate, a redirect (though not absolutely necessary) seems reasonable if the policy on redirects would support such a compromise. I have not looked up the policy yet, but hope to do so shortly when I have time. Whole Sight (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Despite all of the filibustering above from the promotors of this organisation the sources offered fall well short of our requirements for notability, with no independent reliable sources giving more than a passing mention. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure that this statement makes a great deal of sense. So far the opposition to this article has been one individual which more closely fits the definition of filibustering.  Secondly, I don't see how labeling contributors to this discussion as "promoters of the organization" assumes good faith on the part of others or helps in any way to build a consensus on this article.  There are several suitable independent sources which have been provided for this article.  Labeling them "passing mentions" and dismissing them does not change this fact. 98.195.154.2 (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC) — 98.195.154.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * OK then, if I'm missing something in the above discussion, could you please point out which of the independent reliable sources presented provide more than passing mentions? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Try to find them for American Association of Christian Counselors, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry, Muslim Association for the Advancement of Science, American Society for Photobiology, or Maharashtra Academy of Sciences. Not written by members, not written on therapy or their science, but on the organization. If you want to delete ACBS, do it with these too. Independent reliable sources almost never mention an organization. Look at the ones you're member of. Now I promise to shut up. In fact I already had, but I was invited to look at the discussion again.--Queeste (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The Devil's Advocate has argued convincingly that there does not seem to be coverage of this group that is not superficial or whose author is not associated with the group. This means we do not have the factual basis for an article (see WP:V).  Sandstein   18:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree (having changed my initial position) but would like to clarify the language being used here, so that those who have supported a separate article on ACBS understand what is being said. "Superficial" does not mean ACBS itself is superficial as it exists in the world outside of Wikipedia; it means the independent mentions of ACBS that have been obtained so far do not discuss the group at sufficient length to support a separate article. Likewise "no factual basis" does not mean that anyone is contending ACBS is fictious - only that the sort of factual basis required by Wikipedia's internal standards is lacking. The issue is procedural, really; it is not a slam against ACBS but merely a guarding of Wikipedia's process. And pax Queeste, that the process is occasionally inconsistent does not support violating it. Whole Sight (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy vs occasional exception (sorry for my intervention, but my name was mentioned): I did some research: ACBS belongs to Category:Psychology organizations. OK, what is put above is that most of the organizations have sufficient "independent sources mentioning this group". I counted, and please check me, just those under the letter "A": 2 of the 24 psychology organizations seem to fulfill this requirement (American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association), 2/24 !! None of the others: they only refer to their journals, activities or articles of proponents. (And no, I did not purposely only look at the letter A: 0 of 5 under B fulfills this requirement - I did not check C or next.) So, Wikipedia policy? Policy is to accept organizations, however strange and irrelevant (during this search I found Belgian Synesthesia Association, completely unknown in Belgium - has not even a Dutch article - but yes, accepted on Wikipedia without any remarks. This is NOT the occasional exception, it is the rule, the policy. Please check this, I might have overlooked 1 or 2, or even 5, and even then: still not the majority. But don't worry, I'm not going to nominate countless organizations for deletion, as Devil's Advocate was fearing. I'm a convinced Wikipedian. If ACBS is deleted, so be it. Wikipedia is a wonderful tool, and errors happen, double standards exist, that's human. And no, I'm not gaining money with ACBS, so I won't weep when it's deleted. Best,--Queeste (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Queeste, when you say "This is NOT the occasional exception, it is the rule, the policy," are you trying to say that because so many exceptions exist, this is a de facto policy? If so that is very different from "the rule, the policy" as stated by Wikipedia guidelines. If you are concerned that the guidelines are not being followed adequately and thus either creating an unfair situation vis-a-vis ACBS, or else corrupting the integrity of Wikipedia, then you need to raise this at a higher level than just the discussion for this article. Whole Sight (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Yes, it's a de facto policy to accept psychology organizations that don't fulfill (or prove) the requirements, as proven by the numbers (more than 90% of the checked don't meet the requirements). But I won't raise the issue at a higher level, just discussing it here. There's no conspiracy, ACBS is not a victim, just an accident of some well-meaning Wikipedians falling over this article. Such things happen in the best of worlds.--Queeste (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think that if other psychology organization articles are in existence that do not fulfill the notability requirements then these pages need to be flagged as such. Please note that I would not advocate that they be submitted for speedy deletion as was done with this article, but I think we could hardly call ourselves responsible Wikipedia contributors if we ignore this issue that apparently exists in a multitude of other articles. Tzadkiel43 (talk) 18:46, 28 January 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.