Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Person first approach in 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   delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Person first approach in therapy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

PROD removed without any explanation. Fails WP:GNG, seems to be a promotional attempt for. Possible WP:FRINGE, no third party WP:RS for WP:V Cerejota (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * DELETE as non-notable and supported by no sources beyond one self-promoting website. NB: the whole article is in fact a direct copyvio of this site; as a result I have deleted almost all the content. Please look at the page history to see the article as it was at the time of nomination. The only reason I did not speedy it is so as not to override this AfD process. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  14:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and speedy and close early as per WP:DP and per Deletion_process in the speedy delete clause, you can close early. Creator has been blocked for 48 hours.--Cerejota (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Might be better to just let this run the AFD process. AFD is more "final" than a CSD is.--v/r - TP 14:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Pretty obvious case here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be concept/form of therapy invented by one person (Patrick Doyle, who runs a company called Person First Solutions) and expounded in his self-published book, The Transparent Self: Towards a Person First Approach. I can find no reliable third party coverage of Doyle, his book, or the concept "Person First approach" when used to describe a form of psychotherapy. Note that the term "person first" is often used as an alternative to "people first" in People-first language, but that's not what this article is about. This article appears to have had previous incarnations as Person First Approach (created and subsequently deleted after the sole author blanked the page in 2009, the year Doyle's book came out) and Person First Approach in Therapy, first created in 2009 by the same editor who created the article under consideration here. It was deleted via PROD in 2010 and again today after the sole author blanked the page. Not being an admin, I can't access the page histories for these deleted articles, but I likewise suggest letting this AfD run its course to put a clear decision on the subject's notability "on record". Voceditenore (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding those former incarnations, Voceditenore. I've used my magical admin powers to look at them and the content is very similar to this one - down to the references used and the wikilinks made. The page has been previously deleted three times, twice after blanking by its sole editor (the same one as this incarnation) and once after an expired PROD. If this AfD does agree to delete, I'd suggest salting all these titles. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  15:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Concur with salting. It's pretty obvious from evidence now presented that this is self promotion. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It may not be self-promotion by the book's author, but someone who works in the area, came across the book or company, and decided to create an article about it... repeatedly. Having said that, I also support salting the various versions of the title. The subject is pretty clearly non-notable (in the Wikipedia sense) and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete For all of the above reasons plus it says nothing about it other than one adjective and who it was "inspired by". ("Inspired by" is not a connection and essentially says nothing.)    Appears to be to just to try to get people to go to their web site which is the only reference. North8000 (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that I am defending the article, but you are reading a very trimmed down version. Check article history.--v/r - TP 21:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What was trimmed out was a copyright violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize that and I'm not supporting the article. But North8000 has made a judgement on how the article looks now after those !voting delete have trimmed it (albeit trimmed by policy).--v/r - TP 22:01, 6 September 2011 (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.