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 keep. (X! · talk) · @194 · 03:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Grief Recovery Institute[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic promotional text. If someone wants to stubbify and properly source there's a chance it's notable, but this article isn't appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Subject is notable and is sourced in a number of reliable secondary sources. Article does need significant work, however it should not be deleted. Angryapathy (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if someone wants to create a new article later then so be it, if nothing else we can collect socks. I don't see that the current sources establish notability. Unomi (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't judge solely on the current status as articles, in theory, are always being improved. Instead we are determining if teh subject of the article is notable enough. -- Banjeboi 03:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the organization has received quite a bit of media coverage and is clearly notable. Needing cleanup is not a valid reason for deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ThaddeusB. Also several gbooks citations. The article has severe problems and it is result of a paid entry, but none of these are reasons to delete an article on a notable subject. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even if someone's motives for creating articles and content are dubious - we'll still keep encyclopedic material. This does seem to have plenty of reliable sources asserting GNG, some assertion of notability can likely be gleaned and sourced from the many media bits. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I was discussing this with my wife and the idea that this is just some kind of promotion made our hackles rise. My wife reckons it should be deleted rapidly with fire, but I reckon you could possibly merge some bits of it to grief therapy. I'd stay and chat for longer but our dogs got out this afternoon and the little devils are running about the neighbourhood making a load of trouble. You ever tried herding pugs? My wife is going to drive the truck and I'll leap out and toss the pugs into the back. See ya around! Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The information about your personal life and what your wife thinks are generally digressing and disruptive. If your wife wants to !vote then she should get her own account. If an article has a promotional tone it needs clean-up rather than deletion if it's otherwise notable. -- Banjeboi 03:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you not call my wife digressing or disruptive. You have clearly never met my wife. Also, I don't see how you could see our comments as anything other than constructive. As my pal Artie says (far too often), "just because we have different opinions doesn't make either of us necessarily wrong". I guess to answer that you'd have to do some reading up about the nature of truth. Also, there are lots of organisations offering grief therapy. Should they all have a page, or is this one particularly special? If so, why? I can understand that Mc Donalds should have a page whilst H&H Fried Chicken and Kebabs doesn't, but what makes this grief recovery institute particularly special? All that talk of fried chicken and kebabs is making me hungry. I'm off to do some cooking. See ya around, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please limit your comments to the subject of this AfD. -- Banjeboi 18:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks noteable to me... A8 UDI 20:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is the root of a paid effort and clearly destroys the purpose of our hard work here as volunteers. We are clearly not an advertising venue, which seems to be the clearest motive behind this article's creation. Now, I understand the subject may be notable and stuff, but this should be a matter of principle; I'm familiar with WP:POINT, but, come on, getting paid to do this? Why should I volunteer my time while some bozo over-yonder is getting paid bucks to edit?! This will start driving editors away. Whatever is done, let's make sure we leave a good notice over at the editor's page reminding him, just in case he "forgot," that the article is now CC-BY-SA-3.0 and not the work of his source of income or him. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 08:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the principles that apply here are that we look to notability at AfD; and anyone can and is encouraged to edit here. Ergo we accept some are indeed COI or paid editors. Those aren't deletion reasons. And a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL reminder are on every edit window so no need to remind anyone. -- Banjeboi 03:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has enough secondary sources to prove its notability. Having issues with content is not a solid reason for deletion.--AM ^(talk) 10:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources exist. Might want to stubify. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not improved from version on 20 November: "He haunted book stores looking for a book that would help him deal with the emotions that were making his life unbearable." Really? This is an honest-to-god AfD keep, with this kind of sensational biographical narratives in it? I'm more than willing to take answers on that. Wikipedia is not a writing forum for a 10th-grader's homework. Sure, there's a "criticisms" section which is a breath of fresh air, but remember how you were always told on school to put those in with your writing assignments no matter what you were talking about, since that made it "fair"? This is a BLP with only passing references to how the organization fits in... and ironically the criticisms section is the best written in terms of POV. Just needs citations. Actually, the whole thing does, with the very large numbers of claims being made of the organization and affiliated persons.

However much paid editing and other SPAs make me ill, if it meets standards... that's that, and I know it. Some of what started as that type of article have actually turned out quite nicely over time. Unfortunately, this article seems to fallen through the cracks at creation in terms of quality standards of many important types. In honesty, I'm already 90% convinced this is worth an article on a notable organization, put WP:PROVEIT needs to be handled before it has a home here. Citations, notability. Delivering 2500 grief books to 10 million victims of the 2005 US Gulf Coast hurricanes is far from notability, which is what we have to work with now. The poor formatting and strange construction aren't the reasons I'm suggesting delete... I'm doing it because it ignores a lot of the most basic things required of an article. ...Think about how the article will look if this gets a keep and edits to removed uncited BLP info and other unverified claims are done immediately. How much article would be left? About half the criticisms section, and nothing more. That's what a "keep" opinion leads to, if the article remains as it is. ...I am open to the idea of a stub with proper citations if that much can be verified, and it can be worked on slowly from there. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Those remain clean-u rather than deletion issues. -- Banjeboi 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Am and Cyc.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article was commissioned and paid for by the subject of the article at the cost of $450.00 as an elance.com job offered by elance client peterrussell [1] (the only other jobs commissioned by him are also related to the Grief Recovery Institute [2] [3] - the first job is an attempt to insert a link to a Skeptic magazine article written by James and Friedman into Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, the second is for their brochure (see the attachments after logging into elance.com)). Given that the elance freelancer that created the article, righteous_helper, has been paid to create a few Wikipedia articles [4] in the past and another recently, the particular Wikipedia account that created this article has to have been a sock puppet created to evade community scrutiny. That said, the large quantity of Google News and Google Book results do seem sufficient for the subject to meet Wikipedia policy requirements for an article. It's worth noting though that the majority of those results seem to refer to the institute only as part of their introduction of James or Friedman (e.g "Friedman,, executive director of The Grief Recovery Institute") but don't actually include significant coverage of the institute itself, and that a lot of them are press releases/publicity pieces. Also, the only reliable secondary source (as opposed to press release or primary source) that covers the institute in the article itself is the WSJ one and that's hosted on grief.net, which is the institute's own website. Reducing it to a stub and rewriting it from scratch from an objective point of view, without regard to the current text and only from reliable sources is definitely required if it's kept. Brumski (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubbify Seems to be notable; AfD is not for cleanup. Tim Song (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2009 (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.