Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Co-Counselling International

Co-Counselling International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested blank-and-redirect to Co-counselling#Co-Counselling International. Insufficient secondary coverage of this organization, and article is promotional. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is simply descriptive of Co-Counselling International as it is. There is plenty of secondary cover available, as can be seen here: https://www.co-counselling.info/en/biblio John Talbut (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find a single paper on the website you linked that was secondary. They were all written by Co-counselling International. Some of them, in fact, were written by you. This is not secondary coverage at all. C F A 💬 03:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to do? Co-Counselling International is an active international network as is evident from following the web links referenced. You seem to be trying to delete most references to it. Do you have a COI? Co-Counselling International does not write anything, all contributions are made by and are the responsibility of individuals. Naturally a lot of the references are internal because they are about the network. If you think the article needs improvement please suggest how. John Talbut (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a COI. I had never seen this article before it was listed at AfD. Being an "active international network" means nothing when it comes to notability. Please read the notability guidelines for organizations:
A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
There is not significant coverage of this organization in independent, reliable sources — which means it is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The references you listed above are all not independent of the subject and thus do not count towards notability. If you have any policy-based evidence that the organization is notable (WP:NORG), now would be a good time to share it. C F A 💬 16:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Objection to AfD secondary references independent of subject https://www.academia.edu/33733482/My_Early_Engagement_with_Humanistic_Psychology
Also
https://www.martinwilks.com/research/1.1Co-counselling.htm
which is best accessed from http://www.martinwilks.com/my-research/ Pbgvbiker (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source one is written by John Heron, the founder (?) of Co-Counselling International: the exact opposite of independent. Neither is the page you listed — the author is involved with the organization. Not sure about its reliability either way. On another note, it's interesting how this account has only ever made one edit: the reply above to this seemingly-random AfD.   Looks like a duck to me. C F A 💬 21:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]