Talk:The Grief Recovery Institute

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Conflict of interest[edit]

This article appears to have been made in answer to this job advert. Which does not mean that the article is necessarily bad (albeit most probably biased), but it is good to know. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI tagging is to clarify not that one does or likely exists but that the article has content that is hopelessly POV because of that possible connection. Generally it's better jsut to point out what problems have to be fixed unless there is no hope or reason for the article to be here in which case it's a deletion issue rather than a clean-up issue. -- Banjeboi 01:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a prod tag on this article back in June because this "institute" appears to be nothing more than a non-notable effort to get people to buy training and course materials. I left a note on Jimbo Wales' talk page asking for him to follow through on his oft-quoted remark that he would "personally block any cases that I am shown", but there's been no response from him thus far. I think a checkuser is called for as the creator of this article may well have other accounts also used for paid promotional activity. Identifying other accounts would also ensure that AfD !votes or comments here aren't being made by sockpuppets of this paid editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues[edit]

This article certainly has {{multipleissues}} including (in addition to those already tagged) a very long lead, grammar and spelling problems, weaseal and peacock terms. I removed the "criticism" section because it was just a back-door way to convince the casual observer that the article is neutral, which it ain't. I am going to try to wade through the references to see if I can make some inline citations to clarify the text.--otherl left 17:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove this reference, but I was unable to independently verify that it came from the Wall Street Journal. I've seen cases like this in other business articles in particular, and I have been considering opening a request for comment on the subject.--otherl left 17:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I opened an RSN thread instead, and I'm of the understanding that this is a primary source at best and possibly a copyvio. As a primary it's acceptable but can't establish notability, but removing it for likely copyvio would be reasonable. I won't remove it yet, since I am not certain if it violates copyright or not.--otherl left 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

As far as I can tell, there are no sources at all for any of this. Considering the article was written for pay--see the earlier AfD -- it would appear likely that this was person information provided to the author they hired. If no actual sources are forthcoming, it will be removed. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]