Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PSI Seminars


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

PSI Seminars

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Ok. This one took some digging, and it's a bit problematic if I've missed something, but here goes.

I think the article is misrepresenting its subject and I can't find anything to help its claims to notability that is a reliable. I thought there was a problem with the tone, and that I could fix it. First I tried searching for new sources. Then I tried looking at the existing ones. My discoveries and conclusions are as follows:

Ref 1: If Life Is a Game...These Are The Stories - this contains 2 pages, written by Jane Willhite herself, and I can't see any details specified in the sentence it supports. Ref 2: The Unity Movement: Its Evolution and Spiritual Teachings - there are brief mentions as part of a list of similar groups. Nothing more. It's very true that they are cited by the author.

Ref 3: I can't see this, so I don't know. If we're thinking about reputable sources though I invite you to look at the publisher.

Ref 4: Extreme Success - I can see one, two word mention. Again, cited! But...

Ref 5: The success principles: how to get from where you are to where you want to be - There's no preview, so I can't speak to it.

Ref 6: ''Snyder, Patricia (March 1983). "The use of nonprescribed treatments by hemodialysis patients". Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry (Springer Netherlands) 7 (1): 57–76'' - This one really gets me. Yes! The study examined exactly "the extent to which chronically ill members of the population in Hawaii sought out alternative methods of self care by utilizing nonprescribed treatment patterns." - but the article's subject was far from a substantial part of the study. The abstract of which (for those who can't see it) goes:

I'm going to stop there. I removed the Larry King reference because it was the person who was selling (and worked for) the company and someone being touted for spokesperson reasons. I can provide parts of the transcript if anyone would like them.

Sorry that was long. Hope a satisfactory conclusion can be reached. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article obviously meets the notability criteria and so should not be deleted, but needs to be rewritten. Editor2020 (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I don't mind being wrong, but would you please let me know how to make it (rs and v etc.) notable? Or at least, where I went wrong? Could be rather simple error I'm sure, it's been a while. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (Or rather, I will fix it, if pointed in the right direction) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, no. Adding a primary source and then re-writing the article with nary a care to the fact that the other sources don't (as far as I can see) support notability in any way, counts not as fixing it. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I concur with Panyd's analysis of the references provided in the article; they are either not independent, or they are only trivially associated with the subject. A search of Google News Archive found only passing mentions, nothing about the company. Google Scholar search found a few mentions, minimally cited. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, and look through previous revisions for material. This article has been frequently targeted by editors with an axe to grind. The subject and the organization are notable and entirely worth inclusion. And, on a practical note, I think that the acolytes of the subject of the article have wandered off by now, so it might be worthwhile to start improving this one again. Since you seem interested in doing so, the next step, really, is to pick an arbitrary point in the past, revert to that point, and start building from there. — Bigwyrm watch me wake me  03:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, with major rewrite. I feel this is a notable topic because this company has been a major player in the large group awareness training industry, with a 40-year history and with (they claim) over 500,000 students. Because of the increased interest in "positive psychology," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_psychology), I think there will be growing interest in these old-line large group awareness training (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-group_awareness_training) companies that derived from positive psychology's forerunner, humanistic psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_psychology). Therefore, a dispassionate article with reasonable references should be both useful and possible, although, looking through the article's history, I agree completely with the comments that this has been "frequently targeted by editors with an axe to grind." A few years ago, I did some reaseach into PSI Seminars and other large group awareness training companies, and I even tried to clean up some PSI Seminars entries. I'm traveling today and tomorrow, so an extensive entry is impractical, but I will be back home in a couple of days (coincidentally, I'm currently taking an evening class at Stanford where PSI Seminars and other similar classes have been mentioned), and I could attempt a rewrite over the next week to fix what I agree are rather flimsy references, etc. in the hope that it would be more acceptable as an entry. ADDED 22 July: This is going to take another two weeks, because I have tracked down a relevant PhD thesis that I want to see, but I need to get an interlibrary loan. Please don't take further action until I've gotten the article updated, or you can contact me on this page, which I'll look at every day.  Eric Siegel (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2013 (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.