Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compassion Focused Therapy


 * 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. There are a tad more calls to userify than keep, though notability has been established with the cites uncovered, and as noted, unless there is someone willing to take on the article, calling for userification without having a willing user in mind is perhaps less helpful than intended.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  17:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Compassion Focused Therapy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep It's a badly written and badly cited article but the topic itself is notable: There are NIH abstracts on it (here), colleges offer certifications in it (University of Derby and (Middlesex), the creator's work has been featured in industry publications (British Journal of Clinical Psychology). EBY (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔   16:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Userfy and fix it. The sourced cited by show some notability, but this stub needs a lot of work on it before it can become an article. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

 Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes (bolding added for emphasis): "We worry, states The New York Times, which has a whole section of its Opinionator blog devoted to exploring the navigation of the worried mind. 'Nearly one in five Americans suffers from anxiety. For many, it is not a disorder, but a part of the human condition.' Should this human condition be medicated? 'Much better to learn how to tolerate distress,' says consultant psychiatrist Dr David Veale, who recommends compassion-focused therapy (CFT), a type of cognitive behavioural therapy particularly effective with anxiety, 'though it's much harder than benzos.' In CFT, only just gaining a foothold in the UK with Professor Paul Gilbert and Dr Chris Irons in the vanguard, you learn to build up a 'soothing system' that calms and comforts."  The introduction of the book notes: "Compassion-focused therapy (CFT) was developed by Professor Paul Gilbert of Derbyshire, England. It is often referred to as the compassionate-mind approach because the therapy aims to develop and enhance compassion, and particularly self-compassion, to influence an individual's attention, thoughts, feelings, and behavior—in other words, all aspects of the mind. The term compassionate-mind approach is used throughout this book." <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow compassion-focused therapy to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Userifyand then see if its notable from a proper article.  DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Userify but I also mildly advocate delete although it has a degree of notability but which I still do not think as deserving a separate page. There are definitely on-going research but its scope is limited, and hence I don't foresee any massive growth in its future. It can be reduced to 2-3 sentences and may well serve sufficient mention in Paul Gilbert (psychologist). I also notice that the creator has not tried any improvement after deletion notification, suggesting that there is nothing much to add to it. Chhandama (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Userfy where? czar ⨹   20:01, 24 November 2014 (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.