Film/video-based therapy: At a minimum the article needs to be renamed Video therapy , or redirected to Art therapy .  But WP:TNT may be preferable given that most of its content is generated by a COI editor (editing under various aliases)  and ChatGPT.  See related ANI discussion .  Abecedare ( talk ) 17:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as a dumpster fire of WP:MEDRS noncompliance.  Self-promoters using ChatGPT to edit Wikipedia should be stymied at every turn, and their "contributions" should be nuked from orbit.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 20:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am a university professor who has taught at schools including USC, UCLA, Chapman, Emerson, and Pepperdine here in Los Angeles.  I met Dr. Joshua L. Cohen in 2016 and we have worked together in parallel since then.  I can attest wholeheartedly that Dr. Cohen is a real person, has written a real academic book, and that his therapy is a real thing.  it is not for profit, but for the advancement of science and psychology that Dr. Cohen, and not ChatGPT, wrote his book.  I have read it and can say for sure that it is beneficial.  It has helped me personally.  Film/video-based therapy has helped me in some of my struggles as well.  The attacks on this category, this article, and the references to Dr. Cohen are unfortunate, untrue and misguided.  Those attackers are better served to find actual fraud and misconduct.  They can rest knowing that Dr. Cohen is a validated man of science who promotes a good and verified cause.  Frankchindamo ( talk ) 23:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC) — Frankchindamo ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for the rampant WP:MEDRS failures and the fact that the editor who posted it was unaware of just how oddly it read.  This is quite obviously written by a nonhuman.  — Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 22:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am a university professor who has taught at schools including USC, UCLA, Chapman, Emerson, and Pepperdine here in Los Angeles.  I met Dr. Joshua L. Cohen in 2016 and we have worked together in parallel since then.  I can attest wholeheartedly that Dr. Cohen is a real person, has written a real academic book, and that his therapy is a real thing.  it is not for profit, but for the advancement of science and psychology that Dr. Cohen, and not ChatGPT, wrote his book.  I have read it and can say for sure that it is beneficial.  It has helped me personally.  Film/video-based therapy has helped me in some of my struggles as well.  The attacks on this category, this article, and the references to Dr. Cohen are unfortunate, untrue and misguided.  Those attackers are better served to find actual fraud and misconduct.  They can rest knowing that Dr. Cohen is a validated man of science who promotes a good and verified cause.  Frankchindamo ( talk ) 23:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Copypasta'ing a wall of text that attacks the people participating in the debate does not help your case a whit, especially as it doesn't address the concerns with the Wikipedia article.  We're not debating the doctor, his writings, or his findings; we're debating whether or not the Wikipedia article should be deleted as not compliant with Wikipedia policies.  — Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 23:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Counting this comment at the Talk page , you've said the same thing three times.  Repeating a statement three times does not make it three times as true.  In these parts, we consider it good etiquette to make one's case and then let the matter be, only making further replies when necessary to address genuinely new points.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 00:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Honestly, I can't find anything to say more to the point than XOR'easter's words; well phrased.   That being said, I need no automated cut-and-paste responses from Frankchindamo , who surely has the skills from his putative university teaching posts to better understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines ... however much his Wikipedia activity is almost exclusively to promote himself.  (Which, since Courcelles just indeffed the guy, happily is no longer a worry.)  Ravenswing 23:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Unreadable gobbledygook, and the author shamelessly using ChatGPT to respond to reasonable criticisms on the talk page is beyond the pale.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per all the above, not least of which is the obvious use of LLM to write the article.  Beyond My Ken ( talk ) 02:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete based on the use of LLM alone, which is basically just the tip of the iceberg.  Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 11:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  If a human wants to put together a draft that shows this is a notable topic using sources that comply with WP:MEDRS in the future, I wouldn't object.  This article is so far from that, however, that deletion is the best path forward.  — C.Fred ( talk ) 12:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per all the above, topic is not notable.  -- Jasulan . T TT me 14:19, 27 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: speedy delete