Talk:Connirae Andreas

VIP

If you wrote and researched with the founders of NLP and co-wrote one of the most important books on NLP (Frogs Into Princes), than you are a very important person in NLP. Thus Connirae Andreas is a VIP in NLP. So there's no reason to mark this page for speedy deletion, nor for deletion at all. And what annoys me above all things, is that the person that added the deletion-template, did not even explain why he/she didn't estimate Andreas...Davin7 12:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I marked it for speedy deletion, with a template that contained a link to the notability guidelines. Since you're contesting this, I've changed it to a non-speedy deletion. If you believe that this person fits the notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (people), then please correct the error. No offense was meant, and if I've offended you then please accept my apologies. Thanks, Clicketyclack 13:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What more do I have to tell more than the work she's done. I don't need more words than that:

• Bandler, Richard, John Grinder, Steve Andreas & Connirae Andreas, Frogs Into Princes (1979)
• Bandler, Richard, John Grinder, Steve Andreas & Connirae Andreas, Trance-Formations (1981)
• Bandler, Richard, John Grinder, Steve Andreas & Connirae Andreas, Using Your Brain for a Change (1985)
• Andreas, Steve & Connirae Andreas, Change Your Mind and Keep the Change (1987)
• Andreas, Steve & Connirae Andreas, Heart of the Mind (1989)
• Andreas, Tamara & Connirae Andreas, Core Transformations (1994) Davin7 13:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've never heard of any of these books, and none of them seems to have articles establishing their notability on Wikipedia. I don't believe that co-authoring several books is sufficient to demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Can you cite any independent, reliable sources that can establish her notability? Clicketyclack 13:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see also Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Independent sources. Thanks, Clicketyclack 13:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's just one of the professor's that is teaching her stuf Dr. Robert P. Bostrom, University of Georgia. Listing of Maricopa Community College Libraries This must be enough I suppose: for the book Frogs Into Princes there are 30,300 Google hits. For Connirae Andreas herself there are currently 27,600 hits. She's busy for quite some years. Davin7 14:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• All her three books are listed in the "Recommended Self-Help Books", section Self-Help/Personal Growth (General) of the University of Florida - Counselling Center. Furthermore I found her book at listings of the American Pacific University
• "Connirae Andreas is clearly in the mainstream of NLP and has increasingly established a reputation for taking NLP techniques", review of Bob Janes on Andreas' Book 'Core Transformation'.
• "Books she has authored have been translated into 14 languages", coretranformation.org In how many languages should one publish to be Wikiworthwhile? Davin7 18:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Self published?

This article has been tagged with the self-published tag since 2007:

but the above discussion about notability appears to establish the books as not being the sort of self published material that is not considered a reliable source. Does anyone object to having the tag removed? Guy Macon 01:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the references- I don't see any reason for the tag to remain Nightenbelle (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Since there have been no other objections and it has been 2 months, I'm going to go ahead and remove the tag. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources

This article was created in July 2007, well before the new rules for articles created after March 2010. I have replaced the template with a more accurate one.

Most of the potential sources that I have located are available in hardcopy only, so will have to be ordered from library or bookstore. Chelmian (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Fellow at

I am pulling this discussion into the talk page as @Iskandar323: and I have a different opinion as to whether or not this statement that I added as an award should be in here, and how it should be cited.

Andreas is an honorary fellow of the Association for Neuro Linguistic Programming.

Per WP:PROF "For documenting that a person has been elected member or fellow (but not for a judgement of whether or not that membership/fellowship is prestigious), publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source."

Hence, I think that using the association as a source is acceptable.

References

DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that the association is too WP:FRINGE for the award to indicate a pass of WP:NPROF. However, I also think that the organization is sufficiently well established for the award to go into the article: that she has the fellowship tends to help establish her as a notable fringe-theorist. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Russ Woodroofe: Isn't there still the notability issue of attributing it solely to a primary source? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

For the same reasons as such a source is permissible under WP:NPROF, I think it's ok here. In particular, I think it meets the criteria under WP:PRIMARY for use of primary sources: it is used for a statement of fact, which does not require interpretation, and I think the ANLP is narrowly reliable for the purpose of what awards they have given. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean The ANLP is an industry association, not an academic institution, so WP:PROF guidelines governing WP:ACADEMIC, WP:TEACHER and WP:SCHOLAR are not applicable. Since NLP is a pseudoscience, it falls outside of the purview of academia. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, I understand the argument now about not using WP:PROF, but is it then OK to keep the citation to ANLP? I don't think there is any disagreement that she is a fellow, just disagreement about whether or not that is important.DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

And, thanks for helping me work through this topic. @Russ Woodroofe: and @Iskandar323: DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean: Well done in turn for taking on the odious task of fleshing out this biography. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess the fellowship line is fine as a curio, but perhaps under career, not as its own section. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a good compromise @Iskandar323:, I will do that. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)