Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical counseling

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep. Discussions on merging may be continued at the appropriate talk pages. –MuZemike 05:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical counseling

Biblical counseling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure and apparently schismatically-sectarian form of religiously-based counselling, lacking in significant third-party coverage (and apparently lacking any evaluation at all from mainstream psychology or psychiatry). Originally AfDed as Nouthetic Counseling, attempts since to merge it into some wider topic have stalled. In rebuttal to arguments raised at the original AfD, no, a non-notable "National Association" does not make a topic notable (anybody can create their own National Association), nor does the fact that a few sectarian seminaries offer a degree in a viewpoint render that viewpoint independently notable, (and the bald assertion that WP:ITSNOTABLE is simply worthless, as is a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument). "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is needed to demonstrate notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Christian counseling as I argued in the first AfD. This might differ from some types of Christian counseling, but seems to fit within it as a subset. Not sure what text should actually be merged since what is in this article is minimal and not well sourced (which is why I would be fine with delete if there weren't a somewhat decent redirect target). So practically speaking, this may be a redirect with a cut-and-past of a sentence or two. Novaseminary (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's all very well saying the WP:GOOGLEHITS argument is worthless, but there are numerous books and theses about the subject. Here are a few:
    • Competent to counsel : introduction to nouthetic counseling by Jay E. Adams
    • A critical evaluation of Jay Adams' theory of nouthetic counseling by Rodney R Kamrath
    • An explication of Jay E. Adams' theology of biblical-nouthetic counseling by J Yarbrough
    • Behaviorism and the nouthetic counseling model of Jay E. Adams by Michael Wayne Firmin
Hence, there is certainly third-party coverage, though it is a pity there isn't more in the article. As to the alleged lack of coverage in mainstram psychology, I suppose this subject is much more a branch of pastoral theology then it is of pastoral counseling. I must also say that the use of the word "sectarian" in the nomination bothers me. StAnselm (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Competent to counsel : introduction to nouthetic counseling by Jay E. Adams
    • Not even close to independent/third-party -- pants on fire territory here, StAnselm
  • A critical evaluation of Jay Adams' theory of nouthetic counseling by Rodney R Kamrath
    • An MA thesis -- not a particularly reliable source (see WP:RSN discussion on such theses), and certainly adds little to notability
  • An explication of Jay E. Adams' theology of biblical-nouthetic counseling by J Yarbrough
    • Another thesis
  • Behaviorism and the nouthetic counseling model of Jay E. Adams by Michael Wayne Firmin
    • Yet another thesis
"Hence", there is no evidence whatsover of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I'll provide some journal articles then:
It sounds like you don't like this subject. But being "sectarian" doesn't mean it isn't notable. StAnselm (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Topics of very narrow (hence "sectarian") interest are very frequently not notable. I see nothing "IDONTLIKEIT" about pointing out just how narrow that interest has been. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it you're completely un-'bothered' by the apparent complete lack of any evidence of interest in this topic beyond a very narrow theological range? Ecumenical this topic ain't. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. But note its treatment in the Dictionary of pastoral care and counseling, which claims to "enlist the participation of nearly 600 Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish contributors." StAnselm (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Because the article in question concentrates almost purely on BC/NC insiders explaining their reasoning for splitting off from Pastoral counseling. It contains little, if any, third-party viewpoint/commentary -- so little basis for creating a notable/NPOV article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about merging and redirecting to "Christian counseling"? What makes this a distinct topic? How do we know? Even if it is N on its own, if it is a subset of Christian counseling, why not redirect until enough is there to spin-off per WP:SUMMARY? Novaseminary (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Dictionary of pastoral care and counseling has a separate entry on this topic under "Fundamentalist Pastoral Care" (p. 448). StAnselm (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of thousands of topical dictionaries, each with thousands of entries. A single such dictionary entry does not come even close to establishing notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm unsure whether this particular strain of Christian Counseling is independently notable, even though I am familiar with Adams' work. However, this is not the only thing to have ever been called "biblical counseling", and so I cannot see how a redirect to Christian counseling is inappropriate, even if none of this material is merged there. To Hrafn's point, even if the sources listed don't establish independent notability, it is within the expectation of WP:ATD to merge the verifiable content (and the sources discussed above seem able to meet V, if not establish notability) so that it can be covered in a broader context per WP:NNC. Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources (e.g. the theses and journal articles cited above), it is clear that the page move from Nouthetic Counseling was inappropriate. That is the most common name, as well as the name that distinguishes it from other forms of Christian counseling. StAnselm (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hrafn is right that the potential target I suggested (Christian counseling) is terrible, too, but it could theoretically get better and would seem to cover this sub-topic. As Jclemens just aptly noted, NNC makes clear that sub-topics discussed within an article need not separately meet N. As this article stands, none of it could be cut-and-pasted "as is" into Christian counseling, so the "merge" part would fall out and would really just be a simple redirect. Admittedly, I'm not sure there is much practical difference between my suggestion and a straight delete !vote with a clean redirect then being created other than the retention of edit history (which for this article is pretty worthless). And StAnselm, I am not sure how "Fundamentalist Pastoral Care" equals this topic. Didn't you say at Talk:Pastoral_counseling#Merger proposal that "pastoral care" is not this? If this method is really one guy's type of counseling (pastoral, Biblical, or whatever), why not redirect it to his article and explain his theory or whatever? It is becoming more clear to me that this article should not exist, and there is little to nothing to salvage from the article. If there is an acceptable redirect target, then fine (I still think there is). If not, it should be deleted. Of course, if good sources that distinguish this from "Christian counseling" and establish it as a separately notable topic, I'd change my !vote to keep. I'm not convinced by St.Anselm's suggestions so far. Novaseminary (talk) 06:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I should explain what is in the "Fundamentalist Pastoral Care" article in the Dictionary of pastoral care and counseling. (It's not on Google Books, but it is on Amazon.) S. D. King says that "among fundamentalist pastoral writers today, Jay Adams is the most widely known and influential, and may be taken as a fair representative of fundamentalist pastoral care and counseling." The writer then says that Adams' "nouthetic pastoral method makes explicit in an innovative way the traditional fundamentalist pastoral method." King concludes that "nouthetic counseling's rational and certain approach can come across as impersonal, emotionally distant and insensitive." Now, does this belong in the Jay E. Adams article? King certainly suggests that this is bigger than Adams, although he is the chief representative. Anyway, I'll add the last quote to the article. StAnselm (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You ask a very good question about pastoral case, by the way - and I think that in fundamentalism, pastoral care is seen, for better or worse, as pastoral theology. That is, one cares for people by teaching them Scripture. StAnselm (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the Society for Christian Psychology: "From its origins in the work of Jay Adams, nouthetic counseling and the biblical counseling which has developed since have tended to be very skeptical of contemporary psychology—because of its basis in naturalistic and humanistic assumptions—as well as the efforts of integrationist Christians who seek to combine their faith with that psychology." That's why I shrink from merging this article to one that starts "Christian counseling is counseling which draws upon psychology and Christian teaching..." StAnselm (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Christian counseling essentially conflates that topic with integrative Christian counselling (one of the reasons I never liked it as a merge/redirect target). How do you feel about Pastoral care (mentioned below) as less problematical target? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: would it be appropriate to redirect this (along with Pastoral counseling and Christian counseling) to Pastoral care ("the ministry of care and counseling provided by pastors, chaplains and other religious leaders"), as a reasonably substantive (if poorly sourced) and neutrally-named parent article? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it more, I would be fine with that as a redirect target, as I was in the initial merger discussion. You noted an RS there that placed all of these into that context. StAnselm then noted some Biblical counselors might object to being considered a subset of pastoral counseling, but hasn't given any source to distinguish them. And just here above said that "Fundamentalist Pastoral Care" is this (and even that, too was in a dictionary of pastoral counseling terms), so the distinction seems weaker and could be discussed (if cited) in the general article. Novaseminary (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I appreciate the way the nominator fully disclosed that this had been nominated before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nouthetic Counseling, but I think it would be appropriate if the "previous AFDs" box was added to make it very clear among all this conversation. Does anyone know how to do this? StAnselm (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only way to do that would probably be to take {{afd2}}, 'subst' it in a sandbox, and then rewrite the resulting code to point to the correct AfD. I don't mind if you want to do that, but can't really be bothered myself. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is an extensive literature about biblical/Christian/nouthetic counselling. The latter is just one school and so it makes sense to cover the topic in a more general way such as this. There's a survey of the field in the Clinical Handbook of Pastoral Counseling: Biblical Models and Programs. The topic just needs improving from such sources per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think discussion of this in a book with ”pastoral counseling” in the title makes it separately notable? Not every modality discussed there deserves its own article, does it? I would think not, especially when there is not yet a SUMMARY reason to split this. Why not redirect to pastoral counseling or one of the other potential topics? Novaseminary (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are over 3000 books with titles including biblical counseling. That's more than enough to establish notability. The source I provided was chosen because it is a review of the general field and so provides a good high-level view. Warden (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? How many of these WP:GOOGLEHITS are actually discussing this topic, which is Adams' conception of "biblical counseling"? I know you've read WP:ATA, so I know you are aware that such an argument DOES NOT "establish notability". So I would ask you why are you pretending otherwise? 16:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Adams does not have a monopoly on this topic — Lawrence Crabb seems to be quite influential — but it doesn't really matter because Adams' school of nouthetic counselling is notable too. There are hundreds and hundreds of books about this stuff - a level of notability which is rarely seen at AFD. See, for example, this paper in 1980 which identifies three types of biblical counselling as the field was developing: Biblical models in pastoral counseling. Warden (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep in some form or another: Counseling and help with religious undertones is a notable topic; even if not in its present state Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- We should not be having an AFD about an article with substantive content. This article, Christian counseling and Pastoral counseling are all the subject of merge proposals. The latter has the advantage of including pastoral care by Jewish rabbis. The present article apparently started off as being about a particular kind of counselling, but that can suitably be covered by it being a section in a larger article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The "Criticism" section now contains two references demonstrating significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. StAnselm (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Saying that a topic shouldn't be notable is an argument of the form, WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  It is only necessary to read the nomination to know that degrees are offered in this subject.  Thus, the topic is notable.  Overwhelming evidence is added in the AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --I concur with StAnselm's well researched and well reasoned arguments.--Stephfo (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Merge with other religious counseling. Basileias (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google Books search finds many books on the subject, both articulating it and criticising it. That's enough to establish notability. -- 202.124.73.88 (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that the substance of this article has been moved to Nouthetic counseling (that article's problems can be worked out there, new sources reasonably convince me of that subject's independent notability) and this is a disamb page (though that raises issues), I think there is all the more reason to redirect it (there is nothing left to merge) to Christian counseling. Novaseminary (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Biblical_counseling&oldid=1089102046"