This seems to be a bad-faith AFD, insofar as it is created by a user with little knowledge and minimal research, who has recently been proxy editing for a banned user who used to virulently sock war on this topic. As others have noted, the nominator has chosen this article for at best, questionable motives. In fact there is an immense amount of coverage in independent reliable sources that would suggest notability.

Details and relevant cites evidencing this comment follow.

Note that diffs and edits under the nominator's past account are quoted but not linked, to protect the nominator.

The nominator presented the following grounds for deletion:

• "It is advertising or other spam". Not supported by the evidence.
• "Entirely content free" - I'm not sure what this means, but it was one of the issues Damian first used on a personal level via another account, later withdrawing it. Clarification?
• "The article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources"

In fact the specific topic of NLP and its modeling methodology is widely cited across a wide range of fields. Specifically, NLP modelling approaches seem to be very widely referenced by independent reliable sources.

As well as the Wikipedia pages from 2006 listing citations (linked below) I found fairly quickly and with little effort, a wide range of independent reliable sources that specifically mention or focus upon NLP's modeling methodology. (I stopped looking after page 1 of 6):

From PubMed:

• PubMed NLP communication model - Lachler J. 1991 Feb;84(2):74-6. German. PMID 2005751
• PubMed NLP communication model, an introduction - Schneeberger S, Rohr E. 1991 Feb;84(2):70-3. German. PMID 2005750
• PubMed The art, science, and techniques of reframing in psychiatric mental health nursing - Pusut DJ, published in "Issues in mental health nursing" 1991 Jan-Mar;12(1):9-18. PMID 1988384 ("Reframing is a powerful psychotherapeutic intervention... Fundamental assumptions of the NLP model are discussed")
• PubMed Neuro linguistic programming: an aid to management - Boas P, Aust Health Review, a publication of the Australian Hospital Association, 1983 Aug;6(3):38-40. PMID 10263094

From Google:

• The SAGE Handbook of Counselling and Psychotherapy p.333 [1]
• Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics, 7th International Conference Proceedings, 2007, p. 533 onwards [2]
• Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning p.442 onwards [3]
• Trends in Learning Research, preface ix and the entirety of Chapter 5 (of 7 chapters), eg p. 106 onwards. [4] [5]
• The Art of the Question: A Guide to Short-Term Question-Centered Therapy p.31 (per google books snapshot image) [6]
• Modelling and Simulation Methodology (thumbnail snapshots) [7]
• Psychotherapy and Mental Handicap p.211 [8]
• Medical Aspects of Disability p.301 [9]
• Designing Authenticity Into Language Learning Materials p.8-9 [10]

Other:

• Szalay et al (1993) Rediscovering free associations for use in psychotherapy American Psychological Association (APA) psychnet. Published in Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training. Special Issue: Psychotherapy for the addictions. Vol 30(2), Sum 1993, pp. 344-356 doi:10.1037/0033-3204.30.2.344 (evidence of cite)
• What Makes a Good Educator? The Relevance of Meta Programmes Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, v29 n5 p515-533 Oct 2004. Covers the model from NLP known as "meta programs". Site operated by Education Resources Information Center, part of the U.S. Department of Education [11]
• A Review of Alternative Approaches to the Treatment of Post Traumatic Sequelae, Traumatology journal, Volume VI, Issue 4, Article 2 (December, 2000). Discusses NLP modelling within the context of the VK/D model, and concludes "The available evidence suggests TIR, the TRI Method, and V/KD are effective treatments for posttraumatic sequelae." [12]

See also Reflections on Active Ingredients in Efficient Treatments of PTSD, Part 1 at The International Electronic Journal of Innovations in the Study of the Traumatization Process and Methods for Reducing or Eliminating Related Human Suffering, covering the same work ("V/K D is a Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) technique. NLP is a method of modeling...") [13]

• Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association New Researchers/Student Conference - "NLP modelling in the classroom: students modelling the good practice of other students" [14]

(This section moved, was orginally at the top which is unhelpful to those reviewing briefly for AFD cites))

Having characterized this as a bad-faith nomination, it is appropriate to back that statement up, as well as presenting evidence related to the article content:

1. This deletion is to a great extent motivated by bad faith on myself, whom Peter Damian believes to have especial involvement with this article. It seems to me that there is more than a trace of obsession on this theme.

Evidence #1 ...

Peter Damian was blocked repeatedly for a variety of personal attacks: Under his original account: "Blocked: Smear campaign" -> "Unblocked: User agrees to stop the aggressive canvassing that resulted in the block" -> "Blocked: Legal threat" -> "Unblocked: Legal threat withdrawn" -> "Blocked indef: serious off-wiki campaign of harassment and attacks against another editor" (all December 2007), and under his present account log. Warned by multiple administrators under his various accounts to cease this kind of activity. Alex Bakharev, Alison, Alison again, Ryan Postlethwaite and under an old account, WJBScribe). Other warnings related to POV warring and campaigning on these themes include Lar, Thatcher. Comment by a user I've never interacted with, and views of others on this area: Colonel Warden, Ryan Postlethwaite and Peter Damian response, more Peter Damian response, Damian: "if Alex persists in trying to block me this is going to go NUCLEAR in a way that you cannot believe. Really."

2. As part of those attacks, he has aligned himself with the banned user HeadleyDown, whose primary interest prior to ban was edit warring and POV pushing on this article. HeadleyDown and related socks' block log is here, and his actions on other articles he edit warred is also documented at RFAR and elsewhere. HeadleyDown has falsified citations on this precise topic in the attempt to push POV in the past. The nomination reflects in part, the nominators belief in HeadleyDown.

Evidence #2 ...

The 2005-06 Arbitration case on HeadleyDown/NLP found: "Obsessive and POV editing: A number of users have been engaging in aggressive point of view editing of Neuro-linguistic programming and related articles as well as personal attacks". It named HeadleyDown and six other accounts, five of which were later identified as HeadleyDown socks. HeadleyDown and socks block log: RFAR/NLP#Documentation of blocks and bans (long) Long term abuser summary here. (includes evidence of community ban, arbcom cases, and many socks). See also this ANI thread related to one of his other reincarnations. This was my post to Peter Damian on HeadleyDown, at the time of the above: [15] [16] [17] [18] and the entirety of this thread and this one. That's your "reasonable editor" that you "still don't fully understand". Plenty more where that came from. No further comment about the blocked accounts owner is needed at this time. [19] See also Alex Bakharev's comment (an administrator I have no prior connection with) after he requested further evidence related to the most recent sock: I have reviewed the information FT2 have sent me... there is no doubt that HeadleyDown should be banned.

3. Prior to this involvement with HeadleyDown, the nominator had no involvement in the kinds of topic areas HeadleyDown POV warred on, and edited on other topics completely. Since unblocking, he has commenced editing on these areas, and joined HeadleyDown (via Headley socks) in contentious areas.

Evidence #3 ...
The nominator's first edits to this topic were May 5 2008, 3 days after being unblocked. [20]

4. Off site, the nominator has since December's block, persistently presented a view that Wikipedia is managed by an "NLP cult".

Evidence #4 ...
Google link: [21]

5. The nominator previously cited evidence he believes supports this view. The evidence he presents, shows him endorsing what is in fact unsourced junk original research, as "seems pretty accurate".

Evidence #5 ...

See: link to section Peter Damian states: Here is the state of the article at the end of 2005, before your got his hands on it. Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a collection of self-help recommendations, promoted through the popular psychology and self development sections of bookshops, and advertised in various media including the Internet and infomercials [...] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=33400304 That seems pretty accurate to me. Now here it is at the end of 2007, after an extensive series of edits by you. Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an interpersonal communication model and an alternative approach to psychotherapy[1] based on the subjective study of language, communication and personal change.[2] It was co-created by Richard Bandler and linguist John Grinder in the 1970s. The initial focus was pragmatic, modeling three successful psychotherapists, Fritz Perls (Gestalt Therapy), Virginia Satir (Family Systems Therapy), and eventually Milton H. Erickson (Clinical Hypnosis), with the aim of discovering what made these individuals more successful than their peers.[3] [...] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=178579988 My response: The former is factually inaccurate. It is a "model" (in the correct sense of the word), not merely a list of "recommendations". Recommendations are "If you have problem X, try doing Y". A model is quite different. A model may give rise to recommendations, and may be flawed or not (quantum theory seems a good model; phrenology a poor one), but whatever NLP is, an introduction that starts with "NLP is a collection of self-help recommendations" as its definition, is low quality. The other crucial difference is, the one you say "seems pretty accurate" is actually uncited WP:OR (I'm not aware of any reliable source using "is a collection of self help recommendations" as its primary kind of definition). By contrast, the other one is cited to a reliable source, in this case to A Dictionary of Psychology (Andrew M. Colman. Oxford University Press, 2006 sample link).

6. The nominator also makes it seem likely in that section that his involvement in this topic is motivated by negative personal feelings. Thus he attributes a version of the page as "mine" that I played no part in editing, and was written a year after I ceased involvement in the article. More recently on my talk page he notifies me of the AFD (which was "speedy kept") using the term "guardian and protector" of the articles, an article I have had almost no editorial involvement in since 2005, and a topic area I have had almost no editorial involvement in since mid 2006.

Evidence #6 ...

See this edit, covered above, where the nominator describes the December 17, 2007 revision as "after an extensive series of edits by you". In fact I had not edited that page since July 2006, and that was to revert POV pushing by the newly-banned POV warrior. To find any significant editing of that page one would have to go back to 2004-05. Despite this lack of involvement in an editorial context since 2005, in his notification of these AFDs the nominator notifies me "as guardian and defender of the NLP pages". [22].

7. This AFD follows immediately from a previous AFD of the entire topic, which was posted and closed as speedy keep on August 11. The new AFD was posted the day after, with this narrative on a talk page: NLP: Trying again.

8. The nominator is aware of these circumstances.

Evidence #8 ...
I posted a detailed explanation, with diffs, saying that "I write this in the attempt to show you that there are good reasons you should doubt all that Headley has ever told you. He has probably said nothing that was not in some way intended to serve his desire for conflict, and his wish to somehow edit or influence NLP and zoophilia without being blocked" [23]

The HeadleyDown sock farm virulently POV pushed on this topic. Much of the writing on-wiki about it is tainted by the thousands of edits that this user posted prior to community banning, and by selective editing and falsification of cites, as evidenced at Arbitration in 2005-06, and by other users on other topics at ANI.

In fact, had Damian done his work, he would have found the following existing pages that cover the question of evidence and cites, dating back from the time when HeadleyDown was around, prior to his ban in 2006:

1. Talk:NLP/List of users of NLP - it transpires that far from the nominator's representation, this is evidenced as being in wide use in the justice system, the health system, law enforcement, education, government, and multiple other fields.
2. List of studies on Neuro-linguistic programming - list of studies
3. Talk:NLP/Peer reviewed sources - noted by others, not my work, listed for completeness of reference
4. Talk:NLP/HeadleyDown related - analysis of the posts by HeadleyDown's sock-puppets DaveRight, Bookmain, etc.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is bullshit. See my remarks about Headley on the AfD page. Peter Damian (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]