Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School-based family counseling

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 delete. G12 of [1] slakr^\ talk / 00:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

School-based family counseling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Except for promotionalism, I think it is almost never appropriate to nominate an article for deletion because of its manner of writing--normally it's much better to fix, preserving as much as possible. I have never before nominated for deletion an article merely because of its style of writing.

I consider this article one of the rare exceptions. It's written entirely in educational jargon, to the extent it would be necessary to start over to make an intelligible article. I quite literally do not see a single sentence that can be kept, and very few that are worth rewriting, because very few have any actual content. Consider even the lede: :what is the meaning of "achieve positive mental health"? People cannot have negative mental health, so whatever is done will "help achieve" positive mental health. Why is it necessary to say family and schools "are the two most important institutions affecting children" ? Why phrases like "shown itself relevant to many countries". I could easily go through the rest of the article in the same fashion--selecting at random: "Family counseling is one of the more difficult forms of counseling and learning to do it well requires extensive training and supervision" For the first statement, I see no evidence-- and for the second, this applies to every human activity. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the nom's rationale borders on invalid. Per WP:DEL-REASON, the only possible excuse to delete this article is "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" and that's not applicable here. The subject is an academic term for an educational/psychological practice. I was the AfC member that accepted this article, so certainly I exercised a lot of caution in doing so. If you don't like this article, WP:SOFIXIT. You have no business deleting an article that meets criteria for inclusion. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Whilst I feel that there may be some stylistic issues to consider, and I'd like a few more web-based references to round out the already voluminous offline sources, the subject certainly meets our notability criteria. I found plenty of respectable references to the subject using an online search engine (DuckDuckGo.com), and the subject seems to me to easily merit a standalone article. I should also note that the article bears the hallmarks of being a student project; if so, it deserves a high grade. :-) RomanSpa (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - To put it bluntly - It needs Blown up & redone. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as thanks to Bearian's improvements It's far better than before, It's still essay-ish but that can easily be fixed. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per nom, which does not provide a deletion reason. And per Chris Troutman and per Romanspa. --doncram 14:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLOWITUP; there are no sentences which are sourced, coherent, and potentially clearly have something to do with the subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm beginning to suspect that this is a complicated joke, or possibly a test of our mechanisms. Or is it possible that we're somehow seeing different articles? I managed to find plenty of sentences that are "sourced, coherent, and ... have something to do with the subject". For example:

"SBFC is a global movement and has shown itself to be relevant to many countries and cultures.[7]" It's sourced: I've checked, and the reference is to a seven year old peer-reviewed journal published by a respectable academic journal publisher (Taylor & Francis). It's coherent: I immediately understand what the sentence is trying to say, and it conveys useful information (which mildly surprised me, and I'd be fascinated to see whether there are cultural differences in the implementation of SBFC, but that's a separate matter...). It certainly has something to do with the subject.

"These negative effects of the family on children extend to the school. According to Crespi, Gustafson and Borges (2006) school psychologists are increasingly being confronted with students affected by family problems: “With one in six children raised in alcoholic families, with divorce impacting approximately 60% of families, and with such issues as…parental neglect, as well as sexual and physical abuse affecting large numbers of children and youths, many practitioners are interested in interventions which can directly affect children in school settings.”.[20]" Again, it's sourced: a ten year old article in another T&F peer-reviewed journal. The sentences are coherent: the first refers back to a list of negative psychological effects caused by a dysfunctional family environment (all nicely referenced), and introduces an important motivation for the development of SBFC ideas, which the next sentence then discusses. Again, it clearly has something to do with the subject: "many practitioners are interested in interventions which can directly affect children in school settings".

"Amatea, Smith-Adcock, and Villares (2006) describe a family resilience framework that school counselors can use to help families promote students’ learning.[32]" Another well-sourced sentence, again from a peer-reviewed journal, this one produced by a relevant professional body (the American School Counselor Association). The sentence is clear, tells me something I didn't know before, and tells me where to get more information. It obviously has something to do with the subject: it tells me about a mechanism that school counselors can use to help families help their school-age members to learn.

The rest of the article seems to be just as well sourced and relevant. There are odd stylistic infelicities, the main one being that Wikipedia's "house style" tends to shorter paragraphs. Interestingly, I didn't have to "pick and choose" to find good sentences in this article: a quick check suggests that the rest of the article is fine, too.

I'm having immense difficulty in understanding why the "blow it up" advocates wish to do so. RomanSpa (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it appears I was wrong. Some of the sentences potentially have something to do with the subject, as the subject is not specified in the article. But, the first sentence you gave

SBFC is a global movement and has shown itself to be relevant to many countries and cultures.

Is not coherent (I can't tell whether it falls under "peacock" or "puffery"), and it's sourced to the first item in a journal, not just the first issue. The first item in a new journal is usually an editorial, telling what the journal is about. It doesn't belong in the lead of any Wikipedia article, unless sourced to a real peer-reviewed article.

If a definition or characterization of the subject were added, it might be possible to determine if the coherent sentences were actually about the subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have to sympathize with DGG here. While it is well-sourced, much of this is so poorly expressed as to be little more than word salad. The whole middle section is essentially an essay. Can somebody copyedit this mess? I'm not sure that it needs blowing up, but stubification is an option. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started the process of copyediting. If you want to save it, do some work. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 28 May 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, j⚛e decker^talk 16:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Continues to be hopeless. Look at the first sentence under "uses"

"The need for SBFC arises from the challenges of traditional school counseling and family counseling (agency based) models in dealing with children who are failing at school because of family problems. The family problems include: marital discord, parents divorcing, custody problems, substance abuse, older siblings involved in gangs, sexual and physical abuse, parental neglect, single parents overwhelmed by economic and emotional problems, spouse abuse, and chaotic families with little parental control. Carlson and Sincavage (1987) conducted a survey of 110 members of the National Association of School Psychologists and reported that family variables were seen as highly relevant to children's school problems.[11]"

This shows the need for counseling, not for this particular version of counseling. Second,a survey of counselors to see what they thought were the clients' problems is not the same as a survey to see what are the problems. It has no direct applicability to this particular model, but is entirely general. Basically promotionalism. Copyediting won;t do it. There would be nothing left. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I would expect an admin to use a policy-based argument. You're tilting at windmills. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean it in the sense I'm trying to destroy something that isn't really there, yes, I don;t think there is any real content. If you mean it in the sense that I'm trying absurdly to remove something that doesn't make sense to remove, try improving the article to address the problems. If you succeed, I'll withdraw the AfD. But if you mean I'm an impossible dreamer to think decent articles can be written on such topics, you may be right. DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There appears to be no valid reason, other than poor writing style, cited anywhere in this discussion, for deleting the article. It is a notable subject. There are ample secondary sources. It is a borderline word-salad, but the goal of Wikipedia is not to create a perfect list of perfect articles. There are thousands of poorly written articles. The article should be fixed, not deleted. Nickmalik (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In keeping with WP:SOFIXIT, I made a pass at restructuring the article. There was tremendous word salad there, but with a little bit of restructuring, it should be almost to the point where it can be read without mental confusion. I unfortunately unable to continue the effort, at this time, to make the article rise to the level of good but it should be clear, at this time, that it is not irretrievably bad. I'd like to avoid blowing it up. Nickmalik (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I object to the use of AFD to try to force other edits to improve an article, right now, or else, on a topic that all parties seem to agree is valid and wikipedia-notable. The nominator asks a person above to "... try improving the article to address the problems. If you succeed, I'll withdraw the AfD. But if you mean I'm an impossible dreamer to think decent articles can be written on such topics, you may be right." It is a stunt, a protest trying to hold other editors hostage with their time, to force this one article out of all on wikipedia to be done right now, or else the nominator is going to insist on continuing to try to have the article "blown up". When the nominator knows the topic is valid. I honestly don't think that is right behavior. --doncram 11:45, 2 June 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.