Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuro-linguistic programming Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neuro-linguistic_programming

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 Speedy keep all without prejudice to merging and renominating unnecessary pages after the merge is completed. The nomination of everything related brings the complex issue of considering a merge to Afd, which is not the right forum. Take it to a central talk page, and slowly work out the right solution. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro-linguistic programming

This article (and the set of articles linked to it) should be deleted because

It is promotional material for what is essentially a brand or product. NLP is not an academic subject, and there is no university that I know of that teaches NLP as a subject (there are institutions without academic charters that teach NLP for accreditation purposes, for a fee, but that does not make it an academic subject).
The related pages, which attempt to pass off NLP as an academic subject, are devoid of any intellectual content whatsoever.
The NLP article itself is now being used outside Wikipedia to promote NLP as a serious scientific subject, for financial gain.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above (i.e. blatant advertising of a commercial, pseudoscientific 'therapy').

Peter Damian (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the explosion of sub-pages related to aspects of NLP need to be curtailed as they attempt to pass off NLP as a scientific discipline, when in fact they are little more than abridgments of book chapters by NLP's creators and their followers. They are written as if the techniques and observations espoused are scientific facts, without any reference to articles in peer-reviewed journals to support those 'facts'. The sub-sections notwithstanding, I would support the existence of a single article on NLP, provided of course that it conformed to the usual expectations. Poltair (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with this but wasn't sure how to propose this within the AfD framework. Yes. Delete the plethora of related articles, substantially rewrite the existing article to place it in context, i.e. as having a certain history (some of it within academia), but now entirely discredited within academia but a notable industry, particularly in the world of business and leadership 'training'. Agree. Peter Damian (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except the main NLP article as per Peter Damian's excellent rationale and Poltair's suggestion. I see no evidence that the sub-articles have any notability or significance of their own. naerii 11:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP main NLP article -- The topic is definitely noteworthy (whatever one thinks of the merits or lack thereof of NLP itself). Don't really have time to look at all the other sub-article pages... AnonMoos (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main article, merge some of sub articles NLP is a worthy entry into Wikipedia. The sub pages are more "how-to" and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What Wikipedia is not: a promotional vehicle for dubious therapeutic and self-help material masquerading as science. Enough of this free advertising. Peter Damian (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all articles, but for WP:NPOV, the mainstream view of NLP must be included in all these articles. If they are WP:FRINGE science or pseudoscience, they should be in the pseudoscience category and this noted prominently in each article, with suitable references. Deleting them does not improve the encyclopedia and is decidedly a bad idea.--Filll (talk | wpc) 11:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The problem with this is that many of the subarticles invoke genuine scientific ideas in an attempt to make the main subject 'respectable'. E.g. in the Submodality (NLP) article, it says "A submodality in neuro-linguistic programming is a distinction of form or structure (rather than content) within a sensory representational system. For example, regardless of the content, both external and mental images of any kind will be either colored or monochrome, and stationary or moving. These parameters are submodalities within the visual sense. Similarly, both remembered and actual sounds will be mono or stereo when experienced internally, so mono/stereo is a submodality of sound." This is not entirely incorrect, so it follows NPOV. But this makes NLP seem like science, when the main principles of NLP, such as they are, are not science at all. I'm afraid you may be one of the many people who have been fooled by this bunk-passing-itself-off-as science. I don't have the time to go through all this rubbish myself, so would prefer to delete. (Another reason for not getting involved beyond deletion is that the list of users who have been banned or blocked for trying to impose NPOV is long and large. I do not want to end up in that particular dustbin. Peter Damian (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm sure it's all bunk, but it's notable bunk. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't mind the bunk, e.g. if it is crystals or ghosts, but this is bunk passing itself off as science. I'm not sure how you would keep many of these articles, which are purely there to impart a scientific veneer to NLP, without just deleting all of them. Let me find some examples. Peter Damian (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

close this AfD nothing is achieved in my experience by bundling articles with highly varied degrees of notability. NLP is (unfortunately IMHO) an obvious keep, the others need to be considered on their own merits or when you make a bundle on AfD, choose articles with similar levels of non-notability. I happen to vaguely know of the subject and think a couple of the others may also be notable, but would need to see them discussed individually or as a more manageable group. 'Promotional' is not an argument for deletion in a WP:RS subject- it's grounds for a rewrite or possible Arbcom on the subject area. Sticky Parkin 12:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the highly varied degrees of notability that's the problem. It's simply that the whole thing is a steaming pile of horse manure. It has to go. The problem I now see is that people don't have enough knowledge of the subject to 'delete'. A thought-experiment. A series of articles on astral projection, or crystal healing, claiming WP:RS or whatever, and people vote 'not the right way of going about this' because they claim not to know enough about crystal healing or astral projection. Peter Damian (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep main article, delete most of sub articles, main article to be subject to heavy editing to remove promotional material and false claims. Peter is right, this is peddling pseudo-science and is in the main mis-representation. --Snowded TALK 13:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close this AFD per parkin. This is not the best way to go about this.Nrswanson (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close this AFD - This is not the best way to go about this. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? It's all complete garbage, it has to go. How else do we do it? Or to turn your question around, what is the best way of getting rid of this pseudoscientific bullshit? Peter Damian (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I also agree with Sticky Parkin. A note: That something is commercial does not in and of itself bar having an article on it (at least not yet... and hopefully never... It may not be CAPITALISED the correct way, but there will be an article. :) ). But I do think there are many many more articles than we really need. Keep all, Delete all, Merge all but the main... those are all too coarse grained answers. The right answer, I think, would be for an article by article review, with an eye to merging as much as possible. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 11 August 2008 (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.