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.
Comment To which of those "books" or "journal articles" are you referring? On the searches you provide, it looks like most of the hits are coincidental occurrences of "psi" and "world" together, or "psi world" used to reference something other than this organization. Are there any substantive sources about this organization? SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have not yet taken the time to research it, but if the consensus of this AFD is to delete, and not maintaining a stub, I will work at a much later date, at creating a new article with at least 10 citations or so from reputable secondary sources. Smee22:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - This article was only written in order to link the company to the pejorative LGAT term, a term used most often by the anti-cult community. Once a company is referenced on the Rick Ross forum as an LGAT, the members there rush to wiki, add it as an LGAT and begin linking their propaganda. This is even suggested by Smee's plea to hold off until more 'documentation' can be found to legitimize their claims. If the article, or the claims, were legitimate, the research would/should/could have been done before the article was written. It was not until their pov article was challenged that suddenly 'more time' is required.
This article, about a legitimate training organization, is not an article at all, but merely a misuse of wiki. Lsi john 23:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respect Lsi john's "delete" opinion and right to express it, but highly disapprove of these unfounded baseless claims and accusations. Other than the "delete" notion by Lsi john, all his other claims are unfounded. The main usage of the "Large Group Awareness Training" term, has been in scholarly academic pscyhology journal articles, psychology textbooks and other books on related topics. Smee23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete just looking at the article, As is , the article doesn't even say how it fits into the LGAT category. It was not sent to AfD the same day it was written, but three months later. there looks to be even earlier history, but it was hidden by a controversial redirect. For something known to be controversial, and much disputed in the page history, I would have expected some sources by now if it were sourceable. DGG05:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hell, this could be speedied on ((db-inc)) grounds alone, since there's not a breath of a hint of a suggestion of a mention of the possibility of notability or of sources. --Calton | Talk07:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had touched this article trying to fix what I thought was an odd redirect and have no particular interest in the subject, which does seem to me non-notable outside of anti-cult circles. Rorybowman03:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hope it is alright with y'all, but when I have the time I will try to find some more reputable secondary sourced citations describing PSI World, PSI Seminars, whatever, and if this article gets deleted, re-create it in a much more sourced, non-stub format. Hopefully this will mean upwards of at least (10) or more citations from reputable secondary sourced formats. Smee00:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I would add these citations now, but it might just be better to wait this out and see what happens with the AFD, and potentially start this over from scratch later with more citations from more reputable sources. Smee00:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Its only value is to the anti-cult community, which, noteworthy in this case, is where the majority of your contributions appear to be. PSI is a small training company of no significant overall importance. I would repeat the request for your sources and why this article is significant. If the article was significant enough to write in the first place (without sources), why wasn't it written in more detail (without sources)? With all the other articles which could be written and all the other articles you are involved in, why so much energy to keep this one or obtain 'grace' to resurrect it? Though admitedly those questons are rhetorical. Lsi john 05:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not create the original article. But if and when I re-create it or add to the existing version if the AFD fails, rest assured there will be plenty of citations from reputable secondary sourced material. Smee05:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
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.