Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future life progression


 * 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. There's clear consensus to delete here, especially with the useful analysis of sources. KaisaL (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Future life progression

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFRINGE: Note: I notified WT:MED and WP:FTN about this AfD. —PermStrump ( talk )  16:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Current citations: Vast majority are self-published websites; all are written/published by people within the same small circle of hypnotists and none are independent
 * Peer-reviewed: Only mentioned in 3 sources, all very passing mentions, nothing even approaching meaningful coverage. For example, the journal Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice published one review of websites offering psychotherapy via telephone: "I was discouraged to see how many sites were devoted to less established therapies: thought field therapy (with “voice technology” assessment over the phone to help target the points on the body that the patient would tap to bring his or her nervous system back into balance), emotional freedom therapy (more tapping?), neurolinguistic programming, eidetic image therapy, hypnotherapy, life coaching, dream analysis, past life regression and future life progression (on the same site), vortex healing, and a process healing course.".
 * Mainstream media: 6 sources mention it, 5 of which are passing mentions in the same vein as the peer-reviewed sources. The most in depth coverage was written by a non-expert express.co.uk.
 * Google scholar: 31 hits, all passing mentions and/or non-independent sources
 * Web: All self-published, non-independent sources —PermStrump  ( talk )  16:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Note that the "best" source (the express.co.uk piece) is not really good. Moreover, the article looks like a WP:COATRACK about reincarnation rather than hypnosis therapy by phone" (which is what the sources mention). Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional note: no opposition to a mention per User:WLU's suggestion below, but I would not call that a merge if no content from the parent article is actually merged. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable as a stand alone article. Agree that COATRACK applies and fails independent RS citation for notability. Kierzek (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or partial merge. A reluctant vote to keep, but I do think it describes a notable phenomenon. People really do believe in this, as they do believe in past life regression. Since it is a type of past life regression, already a fringe phenomenon, passing RS mentions are to be expected. I do not necessarily support keeping the whole article but a redirect and a brief mention at Past life regression should at least be present. Roches (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge. I think that this can be easily summarized as a very short section or single sentence in the past life regression page, along the lines of "People use similar techniques claiming that they can also access future lives and reincarnations."  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, do not merge or redirect. There is no logical target; this is not a subset of past life regression and not even that similar. It doesn't help that this article sometimes refers to its subject as "past life regression," apparently by mistake. Nothing here worth merging; get rid of it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2016 (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.