Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Givens


 * 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   no consensus. sources presented, but no discussion on whether these meet the criteria for GNG, so erring on side of caution. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Human Givens

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Only two 3rd party sources. Heavily edited by single-purpose accounts. Does not pass WP:N as the only published research seems to be from Human Givens Publishing. Wperdue (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  01:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment does not appear to have been tagged. Drawn Some (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply I think my browser screwed the pooch on that one. How can I fix this? Thanks.
 * I've tagged the article. Deor (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. Wperdue (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue
 * Always glad to help a former Chicago Bull. :-) Deor (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.94.89 (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. Also does not have independent resources for notability or verifiability.  This appears to be a business masquerading as a new model of psychology and psychotherapy.  Clever but non-notable.  Spam.  Drawn Some (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No prejudice to recreation if independent reliable sources ever discuss it in the sort of depth necessary to write a sourced encyclopedia article. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 13:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete promotion for extremely minor fringe psychological therapeutic school of thought. DGG (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "extremely minor fringe" - an MA in Human Givens Psychotherapy is accredited and offered by Nottingham Trent University, http://www.ntu.ac.uk/apps/programmesdatabase/ui/pages/ProgrammeDetails.aspx?proposal=A00000856
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, spam, fringe. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This information needs to be on here, just with more "notable" references 22.06, 2 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.94.89 (talk)
 * Can you name some appropriate, independent reliable sources? Or are you just sort of hoping that some might exist because you happen to like the subject?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * [ washington times interview. http://www.humangivens.com/joe-griffin/dreamcatcher.html new scientist interview http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice-clinical-research/solution-focused-therapy-for-clients-who-self-harm/854402.article nursing times references. Sorry I am a newbie in how to contribute to Wikipedia, so I don't know if these are the the right places to put these sort of references. Also British Medical Journal reference: http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advice/view-article.html?id=626
 * Comment The first two sources mentioned are the same self-published sources that already make up the majority of the current entry. The Nursing Times source mentions Human Givens only once in the reference section with no indication as to how much of the information for that article is sourced from said reference. Finally, the BMJ article mentions several approaches including Human Givens which it called the "new kid" and implies that it is still largely unresearched. Wperdue (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue
 * Comment Thank you Wperdue for looking at those. I confess I don't see how the New Scientist/Washington Post articles are self published - is it because they have been re-presented on the human givens site? Maybe worth mentioning that The Human Givens journal apparently has a editorial board including Dr Jeffrey Zeig, Prof Arthur Deikman and Dr Aric Sigman and is peer reviewed in this manner. Familiarising myself with Wikipedia rules I see that Human Givens approach most likely constitutes Original Thought and therefore the deletion request is reasonable. Perhaps the approach can be added at a later date when there is more research supporting the application of its theoretical basis. Thanks everyone for bearing with me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.94.89 (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply That is correct. Usually, a source from a website, book, magazine, etc. that is published by or more than tangentially associated with the subject is considered a self-published source. This doesn't mean that it can't be used, but shouldn't be relied upon to reference the majority of information in an entry. Reliable secondary sources that provide non-trivial coverage and verifiability should be available if this approach has been widely accepted or researched. If and when that happens, I have no objections to it being written about on Wikipedia. I just feel that it has not at this time. If you have any questions about any of this, or more general questions, please feel free to leave me a message and I will do my best to answer your questions or point you to a more experienced editor who can. Wperdue (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue


 * Keep We have the link to a respectable university and also there was an article in New Scientist on this which is where I learned of it's existence. Either of those is enough to establish notability. Man with two legs (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm surprised to see reliable sources, but NS, Washington Times, and BMJ Careers tick the boxes. Note that the interviews were not self-published, and I've found links to the original sources. Also see . Fences and windows (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if the sources are just regurgitating the creators views, they still show that the concept is notable, per User:Fences and windows.YobMod 10:04, 7 May 2009 (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.