Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James J. Flaherty


 * 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. Despite claims to the contrary, no reliable, third party sources to prove notability were brought to the discussion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

James J. Flaherty

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to James J. Flaherty. Was speedied under WP:CSD. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Author of a notable book. I added two different reviews of the book. --Eastmain (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither meet the requirements of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. One is written by the subject (James Flaherty) himself. --Hu12 (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is almost entirely original research, subject does not appear to fulfill any of the notability requirements for creative professionals. Nick Graves (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. In the coaching field, James Flaherty is a notable figure. He founded one of the first schools about twenty years ago.  His inclusion into wikipedia is not intented to be self-promotion, but instead educating those who want to learn about the growing field of coaching.  He studied under Fernando Flores and is a peer of Julio Olalla who both have articles.  He is also coming out with a second book this year called "Integral Coaching."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubbgainer (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)  — Dubbgainer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: Well, prove it. Find independent, reliable sources that confirm that Flaherty is notable in the coaching field, then cite them in the article. Nick Graves (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Is Amazon editorial reviews considered an indepent, reliable source too? There are independent reviews made by individuals such as Peter Senge on the sales page of Amazon.  Dubbgainer (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not an act of self-promotion on the part of the Flaherty's. Yes, I'm a student with the school, but I am try to only add things that are factual.  Please read the editorial reviews on Amazon, you will get a sense for what the general opinion is of James in the OFFLINE world in coaching.  How can we incorporate the Amazon reviews onto this page? Dubbgainer (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Amazon blurb doesn't do it for me.  Although original research may not be grounds for deletion, lack of notability is, and until you demonstrate that, you will have an uphill battle.  Read WP:BIO carefully to understand the kind of notability evidence that people here expect.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How is that people like Julio Olalla have articles then when that pages has zero references? Dubbgainer (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS--Hu12 (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and remove the promotional part. His principal book is in 1003 libraries according to Worldcat, which makes it a very prominent publication in the field. i find it hard to judge notability of careers like this without something objective like this to go by--otherwise I would  have said differently.  DGG (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While WorldCat is a useful tool to find books and sources, its not an indicator of WP:NOTABILITY nor does it pass WP:BIO for a stand alone article.--Hu12 (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I find myself in agreement with Hu12. I don't see how a raw number of libraries carrying his book translates into notability, nor how it is an objective measurement. What's the threshold? What are you comparing this number to? More importantly, how does this tie in with the relevant notability guideline? Nick Graves (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Notable, to be certain, although the article could use better referencing. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: What is your basis for judging this person notable? Nick Graves (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Admins. Today, I'm more collected. I apologize for the way I might have communicated yesterday, I was just frustrated and am new to this process.  I appreciate your taking the time to review this stuff and am surprised how many reviewers there are to be honest.  I've taken a look at some of the pages you cited and would like to cite one myself as we continue this discussion. WP:GOODFAITH  I could see how this article is one-sided in that the statements are all just positive.  I will take steps this week to clean up the content and add elements that might be from a critic's point of view.  The new intention will be to provide an honest, multi-perspective view on his life.  That said, I am also trying to read through the topic of notability.  I took a look at what Wikipedia defines as "reliable sources" and two notable realms of knowledge seem to be scholarly (academic) work or news organizations.  Honestly, these are two areas in which the school has not placed emphasis on getting feedback from.  I'm actually a part of the scholarly community (doing a Master's in Organizational Psychology) and the field of coaching is heavy practiced in business by psychologists and sociologists, but the irony is that there isn't much research around it yet.  My opinion is that James's work on coaching draws much from philosophy and Eastern studies, and has yet to be accepted into the mainstream Western world.  As a creative professional, to me, he seems to be on the border of qualification.  In the realm of coaching in the past 20 years, he has left a decent-sized footprint and he is well-positioned for more quicker growth.  His book has been popular on Amazon ever since it was published in 1998.  Sure, he doesn't have a profuse number of reviewers of his book, but there are some heavy-hitting individuals in academia who think highly of his work such as Peter Senge from MIT and Jerry_I._Porras from Stanford.  He has recurring partnerships with big-players in non-traditional studies such as Wendy Palmer of Conscious Embodiment and Ruso-Hudson from the Enneagram Institute.  The new concept he is sheparding is called Integral Coaching and a second book should be coming out this year.  This approach has been applied to executives in many companies such as HP, Intel, Ford, Boeing, Genentech, Cisco, etc with what they would describe to be "successful" results.  The focus of this methodology has to do with quality, where ideographic (or qualitative self-reports) weigh more significantly.  This school is not a coaching school factory like the big-name school CTI.  But it still has produced over 1,000 trained coaches over CTI's 8,000 trained professionals.  James has trained several new teachers of this Integral Methodology and each have some high-regards themselves such as Sarita Chawla (http://demetermatrix.com/who.html) and Craig O'Flaherty who is running the Centre for Coaching in South Africa.  But I could see what you guys are looking for in an encyclopedia.  Perhaps for history to unfold first, then document it.  With this fuller picture, do you guys feel like James has led notable progress thus far?  If so, how can we validate what I wrote about or cite qualitative responses?  If not, are the major areas you see as gaps?  Thanks again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubbgainer (talk • contribs) 17:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem much closer to this subject than just a student with the school. Please be aware of the following;
 * Conflict of interest
 * Editors who have a conflict of interest
 * Accounts used for promotion
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising
 * 'Role' accounts
 * Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Nick Graves. Markovich292  05:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Desipte the fact that it's rather well-written, I do not believe that having a book reviewed in a couple of mid-level publications automatically confers notability on the author.  The book may be notable, but I don't think that Mr Flaherty is.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:19, 27 April 2008 (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.