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. So Why 07:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Stephen Gilligan

Stephen Gilligan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable biography of a NLP practitioner that has significant elements of quackery. Sources are largely self-published and/or hosted on subject's own website, with the exception of one citation of his work in a book on Adlerian Psychology and a review of Gilligan's book (but for crying out loud if that's the level of notability required, then I deserve a Wikipedia entry because I've been cited hundreds of times in books and scientific journals). Other sources, such as NLP Academy are advocate organisations for NLP practitioners and not reliable sources. Famous _dog (c) 08:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment Why is this a second nomination when the first one doesn't exist and in fact never existed? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Gilligan has never been started and no log entry is displayed to show it was deleted. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Reply The article was nominated alongside a slew of other NLP articles here, and that AFD discussion is linked to on the article's talk page, so technically it is a second nomination. The previous nomination was thrown out mainly because of over-enthusiasm and my optimistic hope that we could remove several totally rubbish articles on NLP in one fell swoop. Famous _dog (c) 10:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC) reply
    • For the sake of convenience, I will create the page but redirect it to that discussion. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Awesome, thanks! Famous _dog (c) 11:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage of this particular person by this name to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Famous _dog (c) 07:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Famous _dog (c) 07:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Procedural Keep His name is spattered throughout Wikipedia. For instance he is the originator of the term Self-relations psychotherapy, a concept (it would seem) that is sufficiently notable to have its own wikipage. All this sort of stuff should be expunged first....if this cannot be done the implication is that he is notable. Bosley John Bosley ( talk) 08:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The article on self-relations psychotherapy, seems to be as much a vanity project as the article proposed for deletion. It has been tagged since 2015 for not having sufficient citations beyond Gilligan's two books. Famous _dog (c) 12:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
    • What you say might be true, although I have for very many years come to see that tagging is an indictment of Wikipedia rather than the article in question. I note you have now added more tags...that article remains...therefore so should this article. Bosley John Bosley ( talk) 12:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Well, with respect that's a curious perspective. There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that "remain" for the simple reason that nobody besides the article author has read them, cares about the topic or taken the time and effort to tag the content as dubious or non-notable. Tags are useful because they point out specific problems to be solved in order to improve WP. If those tags remain, then that's a good indication that the article's problems are not being solved, or are perhaps not soluble. There are even more problems with self-relations psychotherapy than there are with Stephen Gilligan, so the former is hardly a shining example of a reason to keep the latter. The reason that the former article wasn't tagged (or AfD'd) was that neither I nor anybody else was particularly aware of it. That is hardly a reason to allow either article to "remain" and clutter up WP with poorly sourced fringe tripe. Famous _dog (c) 12:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Bosley John Bosley: Are there any sources to indicate this person is notable? Alexbrn ( talk) 13:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete I can't see the evidence in Google Scholar for mass citation or notable influence. If the individual is notable, especially in this field, then there should be third party references -- Snowded ^TALK 05:05, 13 July 2017 (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.