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. -- BDD ( talk) 20:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Human Givens

Human Givens (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Okay, I've spent some time looking on the 'net. It is four years since the last AfD and looking online I am still seeing only a mass of primary sources...and some occasional comments and single case studies and/or mentions here or there...and nothing systematic in any secondary Review Article at all. Maybe I am missing something...? I suspect not but maybe some proponents can come up with some Review Articles discussing (or even mentioning) it. I'd probably have let it slide, but then when I read this and this I start to wonder about this...and wonder whether the page's existence actually obfuscates more than clarifies and whether it may be better relegated to a mention on the cognitive behavioural therapy page or biopsychosocial model or something...or not. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Potentially delete-- very reminiscent of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which certainly is notable. Could only find one use of the term "human givens" on PubMed: Andrews, W (2011 Dec). "Piloting a practice research network: a 12-month evaluation of the Human Givens approach in primary care at a general medical practice". Psychology and psychotherapy. 84 (4): 389–405. PMID  22903882. {{ cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= ( help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) ( help). This is a primary source, already used in the article. This suggests that none of the other sources in the article are peer review publications (?), however textbooks would also be ok...but they need to be independent. Agree with the analysis that none of the sources currently in the article meet WP:MEDRS... Lesion ( talk) 15:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete As I said last time, seems to be unimportant.I consider it diagnostic that all the books listed are self-published. I notice that many individual therapists' variant versions of therapy have articles on WP, and the distinctions can seem very small. (this is of course not a criticism of their therapies as such, but rather of their practice in giving them individual branding.) The distinction for notability is when other people not connected with the school of thought publish about them. Given the publication practices in the field, I think we'd want substantial coverage in a major book from a recognized publisher, or considerable discussion in multiple articles in first-rate journals. It is quite possible that other articles of this nature have problems also, but we're not considering them now. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2014 (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.