Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psycho-Contextual Analysis

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 speedily deleted by User:SouthernNights under criteria A7 and A11. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 21:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho-Contextual Analysis

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

Non-notable. A WP:BEFORE search indicates that, although prresented as a 'brand of psychotherapy', there is almost nothing in GBooks, GNews ([1]). Presumably a pet-theory of the individual mentioned. The purpose of mentioning him presumably being to advertise his clinic. Delete or redirect to psychotherapy- if the community thinks its actualy worth treating this as a potential future article, and not just a barely-escaped A11. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC) — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, psychotherapy doesn't have "brands," it has "approaches or schools of thought," so the language here is tellingly, clumsily revealing. It's important to note that the sole mentions of this phrase found via google are not connected in any way with this guy's "invention." Furthermore, the one link on the article, to the article creator's page at the clinic where he works, makes no mention of his invented "brand" of psychotherapy. I honestly would've tried to speedy this, as both unambiguous advertising and something he's made up. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed an A11 speedy tag on it. We'll see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal: Agree with the A.11 in principle; but speedies should really be placed with no hesitation or not at all. I hesitated over it- and here we are :) — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:40, 12 March 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.