Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stillpower


 * 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. It's a pretty firm rule that reader reviews and personal testionials do not count towards notability. If anything, that an article relies on it proves the intent is promotional, and that seems also to be admtted in the afd discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Stillpower

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability; while I find a reasonable number of blog mentions, I'm not finding the sort of significant mentions that would meet WP:NBOOK; the only two gnews hits were press releases. Nat Gertler (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The book is noteworthy due to its subject matter, an alternative to the conventional method for preparing mentally for participation in sporting events. Sports are a significant aspect of our society, physical and mental preparation is an essential part of success in any sporting event, it therefore creates considerable interest and discussion. The external notoriety of this book centers around it’s author and the repeated requests he receives to discuss it’s concepts on national sports talk shows. As a sports consultant and published author Garret Kramer is often asked to comment on sports stories that relate to the mental preparedness of athletes. Publications such as Sports Illustrated, The Wall Street Journal, and New York Times have referenced his opinions on sports psychology. Kramer is a featured and frequent contributor to sports talk radio and television shows on WFAN in New York, ESPN Radio, WOR (AM), CBS Radio Network, FOX and CTV Television Network. Steveswei 04:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveswei (talk • contribs)
 * You seem to be making the argument that the book is notable because its author is notable, If you review WP:NBOOK, you'll find that the only ways that qualifies in the criteria is if the "author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes." That seems unlikely in this case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What is needed here to show notability is 3rd party substantial reviews of the book in reliable independent sources ; they're the usual secondary sources needed. Do you have them?   DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, hopefully I understand. The page has been edited to give a brief description of the book, written in my own words, that expresses the uniqueness of its content and how it differs from conventional athletic coaching techniques. In addition references are given to reviews by notable athletes and authors (all with Wikipedia Pages) that have commented on the uniqueness and successes of the approach outlined in the book. Thank you for working with me on this matter.Steveswei 21:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveswei (talk • contribs)
 * I appreciate you trying to address this. However, off the references you added, only the first would appear to carry any weight in regards to notability. Of the remaining three, one is from the book's introduction, and the other two appear not to be from published reviews but are simply blurbs, the sort of thing that are meant to advertise the book. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That is all that I have got. I understand what you are saying but there must also be some consideration to that rule. All I was trying to do was share the information about a book that has changed the lives of thousands of people. I know the difference that form of thinking has made in my life and I think others could benefit from it as well. If that is not deemed noteworthy, then I guess it will probably go away. I can’t think of any other way to amend it. Thanks. Steveswei 15:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveswei (talk • contribs) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

 I use Wikipedia frequently and decided I want to participate for the first time when I saw this page was noted for deletion. This book along with it's concepts has made a significant shift in my life and I would recommend it to others, I would like to see the page remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahgarris (talk • contribs) 01:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Just saw this link in the serps and wanted to weigh in if you are considering deleting this, please reconsider. I consider the content in this book vital information for parents and coaches by offering a revolutionary approach for athletes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.156.172 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dcoetzee 06:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep - Clearly we haven't yet found the reviews in national newspapers that would answer this AfD instantly. What we do have is a set of reviews written by independent individuals - including WP readers-who've-never-edited - who much admire Stillpower, and in some cases write that their lives have been changed by the book. It is obvious that the rules say No Blogs, Only the Biggest and Best Newspapers, WP:N, WP:GNG, etc etc. Only, my alarm bells are ringing here. "Be Bold". "Ignore all Rules". We have decent ordinary people who have a) found this book transformative, and b) taken the time to write about it on their own websites. Words to Run By; Running, Loving, Living; Forward Foot Strides. This book is of genuine encyclopedic interest. It has been genuinely well reviewed by ordinary folk. We are entirely at liberty to keep it in Wikipedia. We should. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If we start accepting everything that at least three people have blogged about, there is little on this earth that will not be considered "encyclopedic". And we have cautions about giving weight to the input of never-before-editing users in deletion discussions with good reason. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Added to note: the sites you link to are not random people who have read the book and were moved to write about it - they are people who the author selected and sent review copies to in order to get a review. This is not the sign of some popular backing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2011 (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.