Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disciplined Minds

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was no consensus. A Train ^{take the} 14:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disciplined Minds

Reads like an advertisement, onyl reference is the book itself. --Hojimachong^talk _con 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So improve how it reads. Are not articles about books legitimate? This book has a story: a civil rights campaign and legal case... There is also a URL link with much info and links to other sites about the controversy... What's the problem? Denis.g.rancourt 20:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A website and a book do not constitute notability. If that was the case, I could write an article about myself using my MySpace page as a reference. I highly doubt that Jeff Schmidt meets the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. You probably are more knowledgable about this subject than I, so please review those guidelines and respond here as to why he should be kept. --Hojimachong^talk _con 20:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The web site details the extent of the public campaign related to this issue and cites several independent journal articles in different journals and by different authors about the book and the issue. This is a partial list. A simple Google search using "Jeff Schmidt Disciplined Minds" shows many citations and articles about this book. Using Google-Scholar shows several books and articles and conference contributions that cite or review Schmidt's book. Is it possible that you do not agree with the author's political position; such as his critique of professionals? Denis.g.rancourt 03:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. In fact, I made a concious attempt not to explore the author's political opinions after realizing it was of a political nature. A google search of your terms brings up 23 hits. Perhaps wikifying the article and citing these statements correctly would help. --Hojimachong^talk _con 04:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stub. I think it merits stub status without being deleted. It can be improved of course: feel free. Denis.g.rancourt 22:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ An authoritative additional reference appeared about a year ago, but I just added it--, dealing with the settlement of the controversy over the book, and the article has been updated accordingly. Will those who saw it earlier please revisit the article. DGG 11:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a standard for books WP:Notability (Books) which this fails.--Dacium 01:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep It would be perhaps better to have only the article on the person, since the book seems less notable than he.DGG 08:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The controversy surrounding the writing of the book probably makes it notable. I'm undecided on DGG's suggestion that Schmidt should be the subject. Should be fixable, whatever it's called. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:30, 2 March 2007 (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.