Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bipolar Advantage


 * 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   delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Bipolar Advantage

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject appears to be non-notable. Three articles were created in close succession: Tom Wootton, Bipolar Advantage and The Bipolar Advantage that have questionable notability. EagerToddler39 (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  23:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  23:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete&mdash; Self-published book that has minimal coverage. Fails WP:NBOOK, let alone WP:GNG.  I found exactly two newspaper articles that discussed the book that weren't merely announcements of the author's lectures.  One in the Sacramento Bee from 2009 and the other from the Davis Enterprise in 208.  These are both partly interviews, partly book reviews, and partly press releases.  Both articles were timed to promote upcoming lectures.  Note that the notability guideline specifically "excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." OK, I see I got the organization confused with the book, which is being Prodded.  Anyway, there's no significant coverage of the organization outside of passing mentions related to lists of speaking engagements and so forth.  Fails both WP:ORG and WP:GNG.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see any significant coverage.  Fails WP:ORG.  The Psychology Today citation seems to be a hosted blog post by an entrepreneur / archeology professor, which is not exactly what I would look for in order to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - There are 500 books which mention "Bipolar Advantage" and "Wootton". Psychology Today - a magazine  founded in 1967, Psych Central - the internet’s largest and oldest independent mental health social network have clearly decided that these article subjects are notable. note the Bipolar Advantage article with the most sources.
 * WP:BEFORE: "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources...The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform." Was this done? Igottheconch (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep "I am Bipolar and the message Tom Wootton / Bipolar Advantage is spreading is relatively new, notable and inspiring. New insights and research can be added to these Wikipedia articles as more becomes known about the validity of Wootton's innovative approach. Please do not delete." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansgarjohn (talk • contribs) 18:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of notability.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable organization with only self-referential sources. I was going to suggest a redirect to Tom Wootton but I see that his notability is in doubt as well. All three articles were created the same day by the same editor, giving this a strong promotional smell. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.