Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Neuro Linguistic Programming Practitioner Manual

Neuro Linguistic Programming Practitioner Manual
Originally created by Writer68 with the edit summary "* This is the original text of my NLP Practitioner manual which I am donating to Wikibooks. I have not edited it from the original except for removing the publisher details. NLP...". on 30 June 2009. On 2 August 2010 same editor tagged it for speedy deletion with "Copyrighted material must be removed" as the edit summary. I have now tagged it as a potential copyvio. It does not really fit the speedy criteria. It may be a copyvio despite the original editor's "release" in the edit summary. I'm fairly happy this should be deleted but always feel it is a bit of a grey area so prefer to have a consensus. QU TalkQu 19:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Copyright violation of what? "Avoid copyright paranoia" and all.  The closest thing I can find is this book at Google books, but it doesn't quite match up.  The user also asked for Creative Problem Solving to be deleted a bit back, and since they were the only significant contributor, I complied. – Adrignola talk 21:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I looked and couldn't find an online source that suggested this was a copyvio. What I meant was I had tagged it as a copyvio as that seemed to be what Writer68 was trying to do by tagging for deletion with the comment about removing copyrighted material. QU TalkQu 22:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * However, it was the author himself/herself that tagged it as copyvio, so perhaps this can be deleted as an author request? Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 06:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is problematic to accept the request in those terms. I think the best option is to clearly indicate a verifiable link/reference (or at least to a low degree of uncertainty) of violation, that is the function and requirements of the copyvio tag, otherwise it needs to contact Designated agent to request a pull-down from Wikimedia.
 * If the copyvio tag or the talk page does not provide valid info about the claim, the tag should be removed from the work. --Panic (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They claim the book is not available online, and is a manual produced (and they copyright owned by) the Society of NLP. Someone might contact that Society to confirm this. –   14:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: As NLP is just pseudoscience, I don't think we should try too hard to keep this book. Just my opinion! Recent Runes (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)