Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Directed Therapy

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 delete both per author's request (G7) by Fastily. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Future Directed Therapy

Future Directed Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Future Directed Therapy (FDT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This is a tangled web of edits. First the Future Directed Therapy (FDT) page was created. It went through a couple of names. At it's height it was only sourced to a directly related web site and a couple of offline sources.

Then a Future oriented therapy (FOT) page was created by a different user, and the FDT page(s) were redirected/merged. The FOT page is a good bit better sourced, and I'm not submitting it to AFD at this time.

Next, a third account shows up, and starts blanking the FDT redirects, saying that the two are different, and that associating them violates copyright and trademark. The blankings were reverted, and then unsourced stubs were written to again replace the redirects, and the stubs again assert trademark and copyright.

Given this whole mess, we have unsourced or minimally sourced pages that really show no notability. We also have copyright claims being thrown about, though I do not directly see G12 worthy copying. In general, the FDT pages at this point appear to me to be far more trouble than than benefit to the project. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been a confusing mess but I believe two of these articles should remain on Wikipedia. Future Directed Therapy (FDT) has reliable information and is currently being updated. A book about the therapy is in the process of being published, which will add more legitimacy to the wikipage. Future oriented therapy is something different and should not be confused with FDT.

The "Future Directed Therapy" page (no FDT) and the "FutureDirectedTherapy" page (no spaces) should be deleated to avoid any confusion but "Future Directed Therapy (FDT) should remain online. LiveForward (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, the standard naming structure on the project would be to not use the extra abbreviation in the name. So by Wikipedia article naming conventions, Future Directed Therapy would be the proper name rather than Future Directed Therapy (FDT). For now, let's leave things as they are. But if these survive this deletion discussion, then the main article, along with it's history, really should be moved back to the abbreviation-less page name.

That said, I still see no indication that the page meets the project's notability requirements. The book has possibilities, but it would need to be independent of the therapy's creators to be considered as a possible source for meeting WP:NOTE requirements. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Delete the only evidence for notability is a paper submitted to a journal but not published, and a book in press at Balboa Publishing, a self-publisher [1]. such a book is not an indication of notability, or even verifiability, for in such a book one can say anything, and a scientific paper that has not even been accepted is no indication of notability either, unless it is accepted, published, and significantly commented on or cited. Including this in WP would be a significant disservice until such a therapy is either medically accepted or at last widely known popularly, in both cases as shown by third party references. I consider this as a possible G11 speedy, as promotional. Given what was said above, I also wonder about copyright? Was any of the material copied from material previously published outside Wikipedia? DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If we placed an article that does not meet the wikipedia criteria please feel free to remove the pageLiveForward (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2010 (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.