Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal development


 * 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 redirect to Self-help. Actually, it was not all that clear what the result was, looks like AfD also doesn't know what to do with this. At any rate, it has many incoming links, but no reliable sources, and those wishing to keep the article haven't really addressed any pertinent points of policy. Under these circumstances, a redirect is probably the best (and most consensual) option, until the article is recreated with better sourcing. Sandstein 20:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal development


I had originally deleted this on expired prod, but there are more than 100 incoming links here and I felt uncomfortable about the prod rationale, which was "The only way to expand this might by copyvio of motivational self-help books." Frankly, I don't know what to do with it. This is procedural, I abstain. - crz crztalk 14:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, cos' Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. - Mailer Diablo 17:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Self-help. LittleOldMe 18:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to self-help unless anyone can expand this.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 19:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It used to be unsourced material.  That was removed, and now its nothing but four web links punctuated by sentences. --Vees 22:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain Personal development is not the same as self-help because a person can also persue their self-development with professional assistance. Can someone restore the discussion page, please?  The discussion about deletion was already taking place there.John Talbut 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain if this article can be expanded. Although "personal development" has been used interchangeably with self-help, both terms have different meanings depending on the context. In some contexts referring to personal development as self-help can be pejorative. --Comaze 10:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I restored the discussion page and relist to give this 5 more days. ~ trialsanderrors 21:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,

Two users pronounced only on Talk:Personal_development. I copy their oppinion here:
 * Keep A totally appropriate site, acting as a disam page. The N and V are in the links, which is enough for this sort of composite, especially considering the incominglinks mentioned by Crz, DGG 05:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The amount of linkspam that comes in here is unreal, and as the field has little in the way of legitimate scholarship or peer view, adding reputable references would be well-nigh impossible. CRCulver 09:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Personal development tends to be a new branch in psychology. It is different form self help. As I understand it, personal development is the aim and self-help is one of the means to obtain it.Dl.goe 10:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Against deletion The successful growth of category:personal development surely indicates the importance of this topic to Wikipedia. There must surely be enough information held in these articles to form a basis for a decent article on the subject. I have made a start by combining what seems to be the best of what was there before. --Vince 22:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Against deletion Personal Development is a real phenomenon and separate or distinct to varying extents from both the self-help movement and psychotherapy/counselling arenas. It could also be useful as the current category page also seems to be used as DMOZ-style ad page for the multiplicity of commercially-inspired PD "movements" and this page would help clarify what's what if written up well. It has been on my list to edit for some time "when getting round to it". MarkThomas 16:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per LittleOldMe et al.. WMMartin 15:19, 5 December 2006 (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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjakkalle (talk • contribs) 15:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC).