Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Association for Neuro-Linguistic 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 delete. bd2412 T 16:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

European Association for Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources. A basic search returns nothing but the website and facebook page. Has any reliable source said anything about this organization? MrBill3 (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No opinion as yet on deletion, must I must point out that Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy seems to be the new name used for the pseudoscience of Neuro-linguistic programming, presumably because the old name has now become so discredited, so we have to be careful to look for genuinely reliable sources from outside the circle of believers, per WP:FRINGE. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes: that is an organization and exists. It has that has members. You cannot delete it - IT EXISTS whatever someone like it or not. I added one from Romania and I will encourage others to list themselves.
 * You say that there is no reliable source to say about EANLPt but you miss the fact that European Association for Psychotherapy has a direct link in Wikipedia and now I added the link to the page you can see the status of European Wide Accrediting Association http://www.europsyche.org/ewao
 * NLPt has a full methodology of training of 3200 hours of training, supervision and and scientific research behind. NLPt is not a new name for NLP: it incorporate what is valid and evidence based in NLP, falsely discredited as pseudoscience. There is research - and a meta-analysis shows that clearly. Peer-reviewed journals psychiatry journals are not believers you mentioned. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26609647 and http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14733140903225240 are simply independent journals and they do not belong to EANLPt. And I guess they are quite competent to judge before publishing that the content is scientific.
 * I hope we can set down the alert for deletion. Drcz (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:EXISTS. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, agree. I have added the links on the research is not the case that is simply existence: it is hard and scientific work, properly referenced. EANLPt is the only organization that represent NLPt based on a meta curricula that is the basis of all Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapist accreditation in the countries where psychotherapy is regulated: here are a few: Italia http://www.pnlt.it/index.php/pnl-scuola-di-specializzazione-quadriennale-in-psicotrapia-pnlt/ Austria https://www.bmgf.gv.at/cms/home/attachments/9/9/8/CH1207/CMS1421843861834/ects-bewertung_psychotherapeutische_propaedeutika.xls Romania - Psihoterapia Neuro Lingvistica https://www.psihoterapie.ro/Certificari-si-registre/Modalitati-psihoterapeutice and I can search for more. The main issue is that most of the countries are not in the English :( Drcz (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * First lets be clear that this is about the particular organization that the article is about and not get off topic on the discussion of NLPt.


 * Of the references provided I only see one that has anything to do with this organization. It of some significance that the European Association of Psychotherapy lists this organization as an accrediting organization. That alone does not establish notability for this organization. Please take a look at WP:ORG and see what is required to be notable for an article on WP. In order to meet notability there need to be some reliable sources that consider this organization important enough to have published something about it. To keep this article a number of sources that discuss this organization are the minimum.


 * Sources do not have to be in English.MrBill3 (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree completely that sources do not have to be in English, but still maintain that this needs mainstream sources rather than just from those who believe in NLP/NLPt. The distinction might not be important here, because I don't think that we even have sources from the true believers, but we still need to be careful about what sources we accept. Sources about national members of this organisation are certainly not sufficient. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. I have been unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources about this association. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 11:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't seem to find non-primary sources about it, at least in English. The only article which links to this one is European Association for Psychotherapy.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I didn't find secondary coverage either on this. These organizations usually have mostly primary coverage, but there should be at least something out there to establish WP:ORG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:43, 28 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.