Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Constellations - Wikipedia

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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Family Constellations (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)

It has been some time since I have seen an article so thin as this. An amalgamation of a lot of ideas of Bert Hellinger who may be notable in his own right (edit: I decided that he is not notable either: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Hellinger) but this idea of his seems to have generated very little interest and notice beyond the typical "don't fall for scams" notes and some poorly-considered publications with basically no citations. If we were to remove all the WP:CRUFT, we would be left with a simple statement that "Family Constellations is Bert Hellinger's attempt to do therapy." That's all that I can see sourced properly. Not suitable for Wikipedia. jps (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Psychiatry, Psychology, and South Africa. jps (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 11:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, there has been some research evaluating the effectiveness of Family Constellation method, so I'd disagree with the statement that "this idea of his seems to have generated very little interest and notice".

  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33528854/

  I do agree that the article needs a thorough re-working. Zlmark (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not convinced that Family Process is a particularly good journal to establish notability. In particular, I note that the current EiC is a professor at a for-profit college Alliant International University and the stated goals of the institute that publishes the journal seem to be aligned more with resume padding at least in terms of rhetoric. Perhaps more troubling, the final author (usually the spot reserved for the PI) is heavily conflicted in producing this research [1] and that goes uncommented on in the paper. jps (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I didn't have enough time to spend with this to actually cast a vote, but I'm a bit skeptical that deletion would be the best outcome here. This seems to have generated a great deal of attention over the years, particularly in German. I found hundreds of passing mentions in a quick search (including in e.g. the NYT and the New Yorker), which to me suggests that sourcing likely exists to support a stub. Suriname0 (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you point to the "great deal of attention in German"? I checked through the NYT and New Yorker sources and was not particularly impressed with them as a means to argue for an entire article to be written.

  What I am failing to find are sources which deal with the subject independent of boosterism. jps (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s more of a thing in German, Spanish, Turkish and Eastern European language areas if I look at the (language of the) books that come up on Google on the topic. So, it would require checking the wiki pages and newspapers for those countries. I see a handful of books in English mostly by other writers. Ava Ketel (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:Notability, although there is room for improvement, the article seems to have extensive coverage, and the reasoning provided by the OP is largely unconvincing. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 13:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - in agreement with Suriname0, there does seem to be some potential sources, but I have neither the time nor energy to fix this article. Bearian (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per Wolverine XI. ADifferentMan (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tons of interwiki links, de:Familienaufstellung is quite a substantial article: The topic has spawned research and new developments, even if its origins are only pseudoscientific. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons offered by other editors; also, the article subject is available in 22 languages on Wikipedia indicating a global consensus of notability. 5Q5|^✉ 09:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree the page should be kept, also considering the number of books by Hellinger and other writers on the topic of Family Constellations and Systemic Constellations, many translated in several languages, people will want to look up the article. Ava Ketel (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2024 (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.