Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mastering the Art of Solution-Focused Counseling


 * 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 (As the close statement was disrupting Afd script parsing, the preceding was comment added by Lourdes  after the Afd was closed); withdrawn by nominator. As nobody else has favoured deletion, I'll close this now. Michig (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Mastering the Art of Solution-Focused Counseling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced article on a book with little content beyond a table of contents. Article on author deleted due to lack of notability. No coverage found. Michig (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep It appears managed to rustle up two bona fide independent reviews. I understand that might suffice as a minimum notability criterion. (Apart from that, the article needs to be expanded substantially and/or loose the table of contents) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs)
 * The first reference is an interview with the author in a periodical published by the same company that published the book, the second is a brief (dismissive, even) review from the APA, and I can't see the third one. I would be happy to reconsider if there's genuinely enough to support an article. --Michig (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can't access the third one either, but it is claimed to be a review in the article. No reason not to assume good faith here, I guess. Anyway, that would make two reviews, which might barely do the job.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a decent sized review, five paragraphs long. Here's the Wiley link, if that helps any. I've changed the link in the article to this link and added the DOI. It's definitely the bare minimum of sources. There's not a ton out there, offhand. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If we had an article for the author, I'd suggest redirecting there, but offhand there's the bare minimum we need for this to have an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Meh, GNG is met, though not by much. Drop the table of contents entirely, and that's it. Better a permastub that a redlink. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep On a review of the sources provided and available, this seems to qualify on the notability guidelines. Lourdes  04:30, 8 January 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.