Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Parker Training Institute (PPTI)


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 21:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Phil Parker Training Institute (PPTI)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not enough secondary sources to establish notability; fails WP:GNG. Little more than a puffed-up promotion piece. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Although institutions of higher learning are generally considered "universally notable", it is not clear that this organization can legitimately be categorized as an institution for higher learning. Rather, it is a for-profit training institute teaching a very specific hypnotherapy technique.  Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Sources? Even academia is only notable if it's a sourced, accredited body, not just a self-affixed brass plate. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Spam. This is not a regular academic institution, and it fails WP:CORP for lack of sources. I note that we have an article about this practitioner's apparently self-invented and self-accredited "therapy", The Lightning Process, and we might want to take a look at it as well. --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just took my own advice and analyzed the sources at The Lightning Process. They appear to demonstrate sufficient notability for an alternative (i.e., unproven) therapy like this. There does not appear to be any scientific evidence for it - just credulous case-reports-cum-testimonials in the popular press, mostly written by freelancers rather than staff writers, plus some celebrity endorsements - but there seem to be enough of them to qualify the process for an article. And now I see that it earlier survived AfD after some improvements. I'll watch it to keep it neutral. I suppose the current subject could be redirected to The Lightning Process but I would still prefer a delete. --MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2012 (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.