Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nurtured Heart Approach


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The Nurtured Heart Approach

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original version was an advertisement, subsequently stubbified. But the refs are almost entirely from themselves, so there is no evidence of notability.  DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. DGG its not WP:Promotional, seems to meet WP:GNG enough for the short article it is.  I took the liberty of killing the "further reading" section, that was clearly not encyclopedia.  ChalkDrawings33 (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I did not say the current version was promotional; the one written by in 2011 and elaborated by that editor and some others and present until March 6, 2017 was very highly promotional.  very properly removed 95% of it, and you just now appropriately removed the paragraph of"Further reading" which is entirely a list of their  own publications.   This leaves a stub that does not even show notability. Looking at the references:


 * 1) is their own publication
 * 2) is the Huffington Post's which is not a RS for notability  -- and where the article subject is not even mentioned
 * 3) is a chapter in a handbook of Character studies. I can not see it, but the material it is used to source in the original article version is about Positive psychological practice in gneral, and apparently not on this topic.
 * 4) is a youtube lecture by one of the proponents, and is neither reliable nor independent
 * 5) is the announcement for a single lecture,giving no information about the program
 * 6) is a press release  in Medical News Today  from an individual college that does describe the program.  But it says right at the top "adapted media release" so it is neither independent nor reliable.
 * That leaves no usable sources for notability--or, for that matter, even verifiability. No matter how short, there needs to be at least one independent RS that is not a press release.  DGG ( talk ) 09:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * delete also per dog 💸Money💸emoji💸 💴 13:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * delete per nom.  simply does not meet inclusion requirements for an encyclopedia.Dloh cier ekim 's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 06:06, 28 May 2018 (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.