Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainspotting

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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Brainspotting

Brainspotting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The author of the article admits that it is a new therapy. Not yet noyable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I feel that this AfD is premature. The article is only a day old, and the creator promised on the talk page to quickly add references. Searches on Google Web and Google Scholar show hits for the term "brainspotting", but it is not clear to me whether they are sufficient to establish notability. I personally would like to see the creator, a new Wikipedia editor, be given a little more time to pull this together. Looie496 (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Plea AfD? I have no idea what that is, but it sounds serious. I feel Brainspotting (BSP) is noteworthy, but it is new, so others may not. BSP is related to EMDR and other therapy techniques that invoke the body's ability to health itself. BSP, like EMDR, is being developed in the client/practice field, not academic community, so there are not a lot of scholar studies yet. Psychologists and Psychiatrists don't know exactly why it works. It just does (speaking first hand).

Having never contributed a Wikipedia article, I assumed the article would start small. Others would read, become interested, and contribute. Over time, as BSP evolves, so would the entry. I'll work on improving this article immediately by finding references in academic and trade publications.

Can this entry simply be "Unpublished" rather than deleted? The time pressure and threat of deletion is stressful. I'd appreciate not losing the chance to contribute an article on this topic.

70.155.133.156 (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It can certainly be userfied (which means it's put into your personal article space). I suggest you make a Wikipedia account, which would facilitate that. Once userfied, you can work on it at your leisure (userfication will come with a couple of conditions but they're not onerous to someone who's writing a good faith article--they're designed to prevent abuse of Wikipedia, that's all). Hopefully the nominator would agree to withdraw this nomination in that case, without prejudice to a future AfD on either side?

I want to add that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to publish anything that's original research. Before anything is published in the main article space, it should be verifiable from reliable sources. In this case I'd imagine it would need to appear in some form of peer-reviewed specialist magazine. Like any encyclopaedia, Wikipedia isn't a primary source; it's simply a collection of information other people have already reviewed.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I should probably also provide you with a link to Wikipedia's collective view on reliable sources for medical topics.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Great input. Appreciate the help. I'll look into placing this into a personal article space until I've pulled together peer-reviewed citations. 74.223.182.178 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. No references cited apart from websites. no evidence that this is a therapy and no evidence that notable. Unless a recognised peer reviewed journal is added quickly, then delete Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete regardless of whether the article is worked on or not. I checked the Google Scholar hits, they are all either about something else or self-published. Thus an acceptable article cannot be written - a bare collection of anecdotes is worse than nothing. AfD stands for "Articles for deletion" by the way. Narayanese (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, I can't find any reliable sources that discuss this topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment His website says Dr. Grand has been featured on NBC Nightly News, Dateline, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsday and O Magazine. Can anyone find a link to him on those sites? If not, is he lying? I don't see any news articles at all mentioning him. Dream Focus 05:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - So it is a new therapy, a big "so what"? There is plenty of discussion about it in established notable journals. AfD is premature. Proxy User (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

what journals? there are none cited? Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2009 (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.