Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hakomi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Sam Blacketer 15:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hakomi

Hakomi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

There doesn't seem to be any sources on Hakomi independent of the Hakomi-ists themselves, making it impossible to write a balanced article on the topic. Alivemajor 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. That problem should be reason for tagging the article with a maintenance tag, hardly proposing it be deleted. __meco 08:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment An article without any assertion of notability is ripe for a WP:Speedy delete under criterion A7. Instead of doing that, however, I pushed the google button and tried to find some WP:Verifiable sources. I found about 1600 pages on Hakomi itself, and I poked through a lot of them, looking for a mainstream, non-biased institution that had done research on the subject (hoping like hell for a Time or Newsweek article, and finding nothing). Finally, I found this link - [1] - a study program for "a diploma in integrative psychology (hakomi)" at the Eastern Institute of Technology in New Zealand. It doesn't look like a shady diploma mill, but we have no wiki article on the college, and it could have been founded by the Hakomi-ists, for all I know. Lacking any first-hand information on Hakomi or New Zealand itself, this was the best I could do -- hopefully someone else will be able to springboard from this. As of now, though, I say delete for WP:V. Deltopia 16:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable therapy technique. I have also nominated Ron Kurtz for deletion. Corvus cornix 23:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for possible soap-boxing, plus the lack of reliable sources, as shown by Deltopia Bfigura (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Changing !vote. See below --Bfigura (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for the lack of third-party sources.--K.C. Tang 02:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 06:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Sources are available, but need to be integrated into article. Sources include many citations on google scholar. Search for "Hakomi" at Newsbank.com and about 60 results are returned. Here is a detailed google book reference, and there are many more. Worldcat includes sources. I will try to add as many sources as I can, but I am not an expert on this subject, can someone please help? Fosnez 03:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It appears there are indeed plenty of sources for this. • Lawrence Cohen 15:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article can be improved with regular editing including the sources as referenced above. Benjiboi 17:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep References now include a number of newspaper articles. The diploma Deltopia mentioned above is accredited by NZQA, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority - nothing shady about it. See NZQA summary and What the organization is accredited to deliver ('Diploma in Integrative Psychology' is a bit over halfway down the page). I don't know how to clearly reference this on the article page - can someone help with that? --Zeborah 18:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Changing !vote based on the references added. I'd be happier if some of the sources were more independent, since right now it seems a bit POV. However, notability is probably there given the academic publications. --Bfigura (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2007 (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.