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. Cirt (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GoodTherapy.org[edit]

Community website for people involved in mental health treatment. Stuff full of links to their website but no evidence that it is notable even within Alaska. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alpha 4615 (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not a community website. it's a marketing network of therapists pretending to be a community. Disguised spam. DGG (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find sources to establish notability per WP:WEB. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It gathers 3800 professionals, it is a genuine community website, publishing works of its members [1], [2], it organizes education modules [3] (+20 per year). It offers also resources for the public [4]. Besides the certification from NBCC (already listed in the article), it is one of the few approved organizations by The Center for Self-Leadership (the authority for Internal Family Systems Model), by Foundation for Human Enrichement (the authority for Somatic Experiencing). I'm considering to introduce also these links in the article. As for the links to the website, as you can see, I used them here too to show what is going on there, please advise if there is a problem with their presence there. --Vpopescu (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No quality sources. I also found a blog: [5] that claims that this website has been involved in extremely aggressive marketing. One poster on the blog mentioned filing an FTC complaint. I suspect this page is simply part of this aggressive self-promotion. Cazort (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you explain what do you understand as quality sources? These are already endorsements from accepted authorities, which you dismiss without any apparent reason, while taking for granted the unsupported claims from a blog. Yes, as that lady says, in the directory of therapies (here) there are listed all kind of current therapies, introduced with a common sense disclaimer. Clearly this is not an endorsement for all of them, as she states. This while the list appears as one of the most comprehensive existing on-line, as far as I know (show me a better one!). Concerning the unsubstantiated claims of that lady + the complaint of that guy who replied, every public entity has its share of such (un)deserved nuisances. Important is to clarify what is true and reliable on whatever appears visible.

I hope for a relevant and serious discussion about this article, not about "suspects" and "feelings". I see that anyone of the users who voted previously did not comment yet, while they made sweeping statements without some previous research. It looks like the things would have had a more relaxed flow if it would have been a previous discussion about the references and the notability of this organization, not to turn into just another congregation of delete-happy users. --Cinagua (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vpopescu --Cinagua (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Zero notability, zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see the endorsements by the other organizations mentioned above as instances of cross promotion, and , if anything, good evidence about the unsuitability of this article for an encyclopedia--we should keep an eye on those articles also.DGG (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The merits of the organization aren't relevant. I just don't see how it's notable. Tractops (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2009 (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.