Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherence 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 keep Coherence therapy, make the duplicate Coherence Therapy into a redirect. Sandstein 12:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coherence Therapy (also nominating exact duplicate Coherence therapy)[edit]

Very little on Google is found using "coherence therapy" "bruce ecker" (quotes included), those are blogs, primary, or selling something. No sources cited to indicate that this is not one more pseudoscientific bit to sell books to the gullible. Prod removed without explanation by article author Exactone. Seraphimblade 09:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep: 'Depth Oriented Brief Therapy' garners almost 3,000 google hits, indicating that notability for the renamed therapy is already established. The premise behind coherence therapy seems very similar to that of client-centered therapy, which has been very successful because it builds upon the perspectives of clients, rather than attempting to impose external control. The narrow search parameters offered above are not indicative of a well reasoned and/or researched AfD nomination. Ombudsman 10:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like an ad, created by a single purpose account and the only sources given are the creators' own publications. Please note that Google hits are not a reliable indicator of notability. Demiurge 13:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The original objection to this article was that it did not yield enoughs hits on Google. As previously noted, this is merely because the name of the therapy has been recently changed from 'Depth Oriented Brief Therapy'. This therapy is considered by prominent constructivists as the premier incarnation constructivist/postmodern theory. Those interested in establishing the credibility of this therapy should see Essential Psychotherapies: Theory and Practice by Gurman and Messer. The chapter on postmodern therapies is primarily focused on Depth Oriented Brief Therapy. Without needing to buy this book, you can search within it from the Amazon.com link for references to Ecker. There are several chapters in academic books on this therapy including Constructions of Disorder: Meaning-Making Frameworks for Psychotherapy edited by Neimeyer and Raskin and Brief Therapy with Individuals and Couples by Carlson and Sperry. There are also several articles about this therapy in the Journal of Constructivist Psychology, an APA journal. Ecker has also given keynote talks at the Constructivist Psychology Network Conference, a conference of leading constructivist academics. The University of Memphis' clinical psychology doctoral program, a leading program in psychotherapy research, has a strong focus on training their students in coherence therapy. Postcrypto (talk • — Postcrypto (talk) • I'm sorry that I didn't know to sign a post. I have also begun contributing to other sites. I had only worked on this site, because I have only recently set up an account.

Weak keep - It would be good to have more references from sources other than the original authors, but I am assuming good faith that the info above is accurate and that someone will fix the references and such in the article. Georgewilliamherbert 00:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an advert and may violate Wikipedia:Spam Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. TimVickers 00:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question How does it read differently than Cognitive therapy? How could it be written more objectively? It is an important type of postmodern therapy and the article should be saved. I would be happy to rewrite it. Postcrypto (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2007

Keep, the objection seems to be that maybe this is an ad, but i don't see anywhere on the page where one is encouraged to buy anything...granted that one can buy books about coherence therapy, but obviously there are tons of wikipedia pages about things that can be bought, and the people that are making them (one example of literally thousands would be en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Folk). to me this reads like a wikipedia newbie's article on a nascent technique...as stated in the article it was pioneered in the 80s, which means it's not had much time to generate corroborative writings. whether the techniques work or not (to respond to the thought of this being potential psudo-scientific quackery), it appears to be a genuine attempt to describe the thing. if the wiki community's job is to evaluate the efficacy of the ideas being described on wikipedia, my *keep* vote changes to a *question* and we need get after the scientology and vioxx pages next. finally, if the page isn't written from NPOV, then edits are necessary, but deletion is a bit much. edit away... Meddlecascade 22:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coherence therapy with lower case t and delete duplicate Coherence Therapy. It exists, regardless of popularity. Doczilla 10:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Ghits is meaningless if not searched carefully on name variations. DGG 03:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per Postcrypto. Of course delete the duplicate. Wizardman 19:00, 14 January 2007 (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.