Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Challenging Training Personalities


 * 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 -- JForget 01:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Challenging Training Personalities

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research and how-to guide. Unreferenced. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject of the article has the problem of being an open ended list. Another concern is that it is indeed so close to a howto that I don't see how this could evolve in to an encyclopedic entry. It has not been referenced, but I have seen such material in magazines before, and I doubt it is original research. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as a how-to -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - essayish, how-to, and not really a clearly defined subject. Reads like a superficial article from a business management magazine. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mandsford (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete OR how-to guide. remove -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Worth saving before it's deleted. It's great stuff, but it's definitely a how-to and looks like it came from somewhere else (OR is the next best guess), and I can't see any policy that would justify a keep.  However, for those of us who have encountered "The Know it All", "The Arguer", "The Digressor", etc. in these AfD debates, this is a great way to deal with that while staying within WP:CIVIL.  I've been guilty of acting like nearly every one of the "challenging" personalities at one time or another, and I think we can all recognize ourselves.  If someone can give a policy reason for keep, lemme know.  I hope it stays up awhile instead of being snowballed. Mandsford (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds awefully much like WP:ITSUSEFULL, an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See what I mean? Every type of personality is described in this useful (though not a keeper) article, starting with "The know-it-all".  Let's see, I encourage other group members to comment on the person’s remarks freely.  As Martijn has pointed out for anyone new here, if you want to keep the article, don't simply argue that it's useful (strangely enough, "it's usefull" doesn't bring up a redlink).  Useful, interesting, etc., are elements of style, but don't speak to whether an article belongs in an encyclopedia.  Again, I haven't seen a reason for the article to stay.


 * 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.