Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonviolent communication

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 keep, clearly not going to be deleted. Endorsing SynergeticMaggot's non-admin closure. Neıl ☎ 09:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonviolent communication

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

This was declined as a speedy, but to me it reads as advertising for this guys book with a dose of instructional content and a linkspam farm thrown on top. No links to reliable sources, and I couldn't find any either, so it seems to qualifiy as original research as well. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep for the moment. As a Peace Studies major, I've heard of this concept, and I think I can probably find some reliable sources before the AfD runs out (although it's the busy time of year for college students). If I can't, then I'll say so and change my !vote. I do agree, however, that the article could use some major improvement; it's certainly not neutral and the links at the end are far too numerous. Anturiaethwr 01:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep: "Advertising for this guy's book." Make that twelve books, at least. Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life ranks # 9 (out of 100) on Amazon.com's list of Interpersonal Relations bestsellers and # 52 on the list of Psychology & Counseling bestsellers five years after its initial publication (# 693 overall). Speak Peace in a World of Conflict: What You Say Next Will Change Your World ranks 21 among Amazon's Conflict Management bestsellers. Courses in NVC are taught all over the world. I'm not sure why Beeblbrox was unable to find sources. I've added a "References" section with several. I agree with Anturiaethwr that the article could be written in more neutral language. Also agree that the links need triming. Sunray (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I actually saw that section before I commented; I offered to look for sources because I think it might be argued that those sources aren't quite up to snuff. I have no strong feelings about them, but I think some people might object that some of them aren't strictly "third-party," being interviews with the author; and that one of them is about the book, rather than about the concept itself. The Co-intelligence Institute one looks fine to me, but I don't know whether that alone is "substantial." If no one objects to your sources, then I'll just go with a plain "keep." Oh, by the way, I don't think the sales numbers on Amazon are reliable indicators of notability--neither for the book, nor (more importantly) for the concept itself. Sorry. Anturiaethwr 02:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with your comments about the sources. Most are not peer-reviewed. However, I think that they do establish notability, as do the amazon.com stats. A subject covered in a book at # 693 on Amazon's list is not un-notable. We could eliminate half of Wikipedia's articles if it were. Sunray (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• keep. Get rid of the spam - and everything will be fine. Sources will be easy - Ill see if I can find some. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 01:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• keep. NVC is an important and valid method of conflict resolution and is well established. It is recognized enough that it deserves an entry. If the article seems to slighted then it should be rewritten, but the topic should not be removed completely.

• Keep The term is at least thrown around a lot; any spam problems can be fixed without deleting it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gnangarra 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

afd reopened after closure as WP:SPEEDYKEEP by SynergeticMaggot (talk · contribs)diff speedy keep requires No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves. as the nominator hasnt with drawn the nomination and that the discussion continued after the closurediff indicates that this needs to run the full time period. Gnangarra 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats pretty laughable actually. Just because an editor makes a comment after an AfD is closed, does not mean it needs to remain opened. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

as describe in detail at WP:WQA#User:SynergeticMaggot and his/her interpretation of WP:SPEEDYKEEP it was reopen due not meeting SpeedyKeep closure the discussion after clossure shows that WP:SNOW wasnt an alternative either. Gnangarra 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This article needs a serious rewrite to make it clear that this is not merely the natural concept of communication without violence, but rather a specific term coined in a series of books by Marshall Rosenberg that has a certain degree of real-world importance. I don't think this is advertising as it is: in general, any concept covered on Wikipedia is promoted just by the existence of the article, but this seems to meet our standards for inclusion. Mangojuice^talk 16:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. About notoriety: Googling for Nonviolent communication gives 7300 .edu hits, 2200 .gov hits, and 840 scholar hits. Most of these are third-party discussions of how Rosenberg's nonviolent communication can be deployed in psychology, education, health care, and in international peace-making. gmarceau (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2011 (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.