Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evangelical Renewal 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   speedy delete. following the request of the single author. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Evangelical Renewal Therapy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I declined the speedy tag but believe the article is unencyclopedic, and the term is a neologism. Would need a fundamental rewrite, mostly because it is not about the therapy itself but about the paper on the therapy. The references are: Two passing mentions, one listing in a large bibliography, the paper itself, and a further proof that the paper exists. Not sufficiently notable as a topic. Pgallert (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. This article is written about a topic and/or is research by Patrick Saucer. Patrick Saucer also wrote the article. Clearly this is WP:COI. Also, this article reads like an essay, is clearly WP:POV, and comes to conclusions (repentance is achieved through...). This is not an encyclopedic article now, and written by the author himself, is unlikely to become one. I do not even know if the title of the article is valid in the mainstream study, or if it was coined by the author. Essays like this should fall under some CSD; I wish they would. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 13:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, weakly. This actually gets seven Google Scholar hits.  One is for a report by the author; others seem to be citing that work, and as is usual in Scholar hits its hard to judge the depth of coverage.  Not yet convinced that this is significant enough to count as a notable theory. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, The rules do not prevent the author of research which has been published in peer reviewed journals to create a neutral page on that topic. When an academic article is listed in a bibliographic section of another academic paper, it means that it was mentioned in the article. Entriles are not placed in bibliographic sections as filler items. Citation means that the material is considered as having some value. Although ERT has fewer citations that other recognized forms of Christian psychotherapy, it has miminal acceptance in the field of Christian Psychotherapy. No negative articles have been published against ERT. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: all edits by this user have been about this topic, even if only to add the text "including religous counseling" to pages. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 14:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: No one says your paper has no value. You will however notice the absence of, say, a few million Wikipedia articles on other valuable scientific contributions. Every scientist has a list of published papers, every scientist has to some extent developed new terminology. To conclude that your theory has "miminal acceptance" because it has not been refuted is adventurous -- on the contrary: If someone wrote an article against ERT, that would indicate its importance. --Pgallert (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * keep having been cited in at least five scholary books shows that ERT is more than a flight of fancy on my part. http://books.google.com/books?as_brr=0&as_pub=-icon&q=%22Evangelical+Renewal+Therapy%22 I had eidted Christian Counseling article which needs editing to show that there are organized and recogniozed modalities of Christian Counseling. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This "keep" is the second from the article's author. Only one vote, sir! &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 16:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. This is at best a POV content fork from Christian counseling or other counseling articles, but per WP:UNDUE, doesn't really belong there, either. As noted by others above, I think the article is non-encyclopedic, the term is a neologism, and the subject is not notable for WP purposes. The COI issue only further strengthens this view. Novaseminary (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering that the subject matter, size, and format of the ERT article is similar to that of Nouthetic Counseling, I find that the criteria for deleting the ERT to be capricious and not applied equally. Allowing Nouthetic Counseling to remain while allowing ERT to be deleted shows a pov bias. The Nouthetic Counseling is more of a neologism than ERT. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks like an editor proded Nouthetic Counseling and that an IP editor removed the prod. Regardless, that other stuff exists is not reason to keep this article. But it might be a reason for a separate AfD for that one, or a reason to include Nouthetic Counseling in this AfD. Novaseminary (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic seems to be of nominal notability based on references to Rev. Saucer's work. However, the article needs to be improved, and requires improved references.  If the article can't be improved in the normal 30 days or so, it may be re-nominated for lack of verifying sources.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

 Request  As the author of this page, I am requesting that it be immedately deleted as I am unable to rectify the problems listed above. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2010 (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.