Deletion of Strategy (NLP)

Comment: unless sufficient sources are added to |verify the accuracy of the basic info given in the article and to demonstrate |notability of the topic. At the moment it is very difficult to understand what the article is about and, although the article is 2 years old, there are still no sources cited in it.  For now what is written in the article essentially qualifies as . The topic is sufficiently technical and specialized that some amount of specific knowledge of the subject matter is necessary to fill in the gaps here and add some sources; this is not a case where a random editor unfamiliar with the subject can just do a google search, find a few relevant references and add them. After reading the text a couple of times I still could not make heads or tails out of it. I should say, however, that I am not persuaded by the "undue weight" arguments of the nominator. Yes, this seems to be an article about some sort of a fringe theory but the undue weight issue would only come in if the article was about a larger topic. In articles about fringe theories/movements themselves the udue weight argument does not really play. The key question is if the topic if notable. I suspect that it might be (certainly there is plenty of coverage of NLP, whatever that is, by |reliable sources, as a basic GoogleScholar search showshttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Neuro-linguistic+programming%22+&btnG=Search) but given the technical nature of the subject, it is up to the article creator and the keep proponents to provide verifiable evidence of notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N||WP:OR||WP:RS)

Comment: Un-sourced stub about a |non-notable sub-topic that can easily be included in one of the various larger pages within the NLP-realm of articles.  The concept may be worth an explanation within those other pages, but it does not meet the requirements for a separate page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)