Talk:Connirae Andreas

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I am pulling this discussion into the talk page as  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.
DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: 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)

text: @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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And, thanks for helping me work through this topic.  and  DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @DaffodilOcean: Well done in turn for taking on the odious task of fleshing out this biography. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: This seems like a good compromise , I will do that. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fellow at