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. I'm closing as non consensus because this is not an acceptable group nomination. The previous nomination referred to there is not a good precedent. It covered a much narrower range of topics, all of them specialized aspects of NLP that could probably fit well into a general article; this one also covers individuals and organizations, and the standards for notability & the possible manner or merging & the possible need for redirects are different. (And I'm not sure the previous one was a good close -- though a more justifiable group nomination than this, it still did not have discussion of the individual items, especially items which were added during the nomination.) I suspect we may well end up deleting most or possibly all of these, but they need to be discussed. (And when they are, I advise the nom. not make the argument that books are less reliable in general than other sources, for it is flatly contradictory to policy. Books from reliable publishers, especially academic or learned society publishers, are at least as reliable as journal articles--and often more so, in that they normally get much more stringent peer review because of the greater financial commitment. That they can be more easily cited here without actually being read is a problem; but this must be discussed in individual cases. The book published by the British computer society may or may not actually be a RS, but it would be treated as one unless there is evidence otherwise.) DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

State management (NLP)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same reasons as recent Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anchoring (NLP) Famous_dog 12:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for much the same reasons (poor sourcing, promotional or SP sources, fringe topic, notability concerns, etc):

... and these articles about non- or barely-notable NLP authors:

Famous_dog 12:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:UNDUE and WP:PSCI - Because ... "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

OBO α ω 05:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added more not-particularly-notable NLPers, notable only for using WP to promote themselves. Famous_dog 11:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Famous_dog 07:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all There seem to be numerous sources covering the concept of state management such as Gower Handbook of Leadership and Management Development; Ahead of the Game; NLP for Project Managers; &c. There are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with the main article about NLP or a similar article such as mood management theory. It therefore seems that WP:BEFORE has not been followed and we should not delete a large heterogeneous bundle without such due diligence. Warden (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are any of these "numerous sources" you mention RS or are they all books? These various articles do not seem to be about notable enough aspects NLP (already a niche topic) to deserve their own entries. There is also very little well-sourced and informative material to salvage. Some articles (Future pacing) have only single sources, usually a business website. Most of them (NLP University, State management) are simply unsourced stubs. Some other more lengthy articles (Sleight of mouth) are context- and discussion-free lists of examples ("...most of the understanding will follow from working through examples, and seeing how these are applied..."). They do not explain the very concepts they purport to be about and WP is WP:NOT a how-to manual. Finally, very few other articles link to these (or rather, they all link to each other, creating a WP:WALLEDGARDEN) and I am positive that the readership of WP would not miss them. Famous_dog 11:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  - NLP for Project Managers is published by the British Computer Society which is a respectable professional body. More generally, what you're effectively trying to do here is speedy delete this bundle of topics. Please deal with them separately using that process, which is described at WP:CSD. Warden (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nobody suggested that during the other recent AFD. Please explain yourself. Famous _dog (c) 20:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - (after edit conflict) Are you claiming that books cannot be reliable sources? And the ones listed by Colonel Warden are not self-published, including one published by the British Computer Society. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most fringe books aren't! WP:SPS suggests that books should be treated with scepticism. Although I admit it is very much publisher-dependent. Famous_dog (c) 20:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:SPS only suggests that self-published books should be treated with scepticism. The idea that all books should be treated with scepticism is as ridiculous as the idea that NLP has any scientific basis. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Books are not peer-reviewed and are usually produced for the simple expedient of making some publisher some money, so although I see your point that I have interpreted WP:SPS too stringently in this case, the idea that all books should be treated with scepticism is NOT "as ridiculous as the idea that NLP has any scientific basis." It is in fact significantly less ridiculous. Books should be treated with more scepticism than scientific articles, depending on who the author is and who the publisher is, although we should be much less sceptical about that than the validity of NLP! However... dragging this comment thread back to the subject at hand... Most of these topics/people are simply not notable enough to warrant their own articles and the one article that Warden seems to think is notable is currently a Stubby McStubstub composed of two sentences that don't really say anything and are dependent upon reading several other NLP articles (some of which have recently been deleted). Merge and redirect that one if you wish, but the vast majority of these articles have very little in the way of sourcing and very little to add to WP. The biog articles are simple self-promotion. Famous _dog (c) 08:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge articles on NLP topics to Neuro-linguistic programming: having all these separate articles seems excessive coverage especially when they're short. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2012 (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.