Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophical counseling

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 delete. Krimpet (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophical counseling

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

Entirely WP:OR. Not a single reliable source is referenced in this article. It is not even established that this subject is notable enough in the field of counseling to deserve an article. In any case, we delete OR even if notability is established. Currently it is my assessment that there is nothing salvageable in the article unless a whole bunch of sources can be found. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The nominator is basically correct. I think the basics that some German philosopher founded a counseling practice may be notable, and that does have a source in the external links. By the nature of things, fringe subjects like this will be written by people who have a POV partial to that subject. That's the problem here. YechielMan 05:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Probably noteworthy, but needs an almost total rewrite - including sources that are a bit better then "A whole pile of resources". As it is now, it is an essay advertising philosophical counseling. DLX 05:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete in its present form, and re-create with altogether new content as an article for the Society for Philosophy in Practice. The group thinks it owns the term, but there is no support for that in the references. The article for the group, of course, would not contain any of the material of the general usefulness of philosophy which comprises the entire body of the article. The only content worth saving would be the references, all of which relate to the group, not to the concept, so there's no point is just retitling. One of these references is naively listed as "Website of Peter B. Raabe, Ph.D., author of an early version of the above article" The group thinks it owns the article, just as it thinks it owns the term. There have been a number of attempts of various schools of therapy and martial arts to choose a generic name, and try to make it their own, using WP to establish the usage, rather than the other way around. DGG 08:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - this is entirely original research. the_undertow ^talk 00:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete What little in there that isn't original research wouldn't make a decent stub. Coren 00:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Its own sources sum it up "not yet established and known to the public as a professional service". Most references are so vague I could not even find a comment to Philosophy or found only a passing mention of it. Others have no notibility and definatly not reliable sources. Would keep if in general it was better referenced AND in some why shows why it is notable.Dacium 00:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Original Research doesn't belong here. Jmlk17 05:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Pure original research = delete. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:21, 30 April 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.