Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fountainhead Method

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fountainhead Method

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

Promotional article based on primary sources. Could not find any independent secondary sources to indicate notability. RL0919 (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com.au/books/about/28_Days_to_Beat_the_Blues.html?id=j6LHbwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y book based on and describing the unique method known as the fountainhead method This is a unique educational based solution for depression and a real alternative. Gregjester (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended by the anti depression association of australia , a not for profit association to assist people with educational solutions for depression. http://adaa.org.au/ Gregjester (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, a self-published book by people promoting this method is not an indication of notability. --RL0919 (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book however is an indication and explanation of a unique concept and alternative solution to depression Gregjester (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC) I cannot agree that it is a promotionally article at all, the article has been edited multiple times and been rejected by editors until changes were made to make sure this is not the case, it is simply designed to show that an educational solution to depression and anxiety exists.Gregjester (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just going over the current references in the article:

- Mark Furner's letter appears to be some kind of testamonial and has no indication that it was ever published (or even that Mr. Furner actually wrote it).

-the ADAA appears to be some kind of lobby group. Either way, the references don't show that the letter was ever published or distributed, so I'm not sure it can be verified and used.

-the Couriermail article [1] looks promisingly reliable but it just describes the 'Fountainhead Health Resort', there's no mention of a 'Fountainhead Method'

-the ADAA submission to government appears to be typical lobbyist advocacy. It is at least verifiable that they send the letter to Australia's government (it's on the gov't website), but without knowing if the Fountainhead people are paying for their services, this reference is a little suspect also.--Stvfetterly (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are all dubious and searching doesn't present any others that are more promising. Mangoe (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I still haven't been able to find better references than the ones in the article . . . and as described above, they're all pretty poor.--Stvfetterly (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2012 (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.