Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrence Webster-Doyle


 * 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   Keep and cleanup. Article meets BIO and with integration of sources, GNG. Horribly self-promoting tone needs to be excised, however. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Terrence Webster-Doyle

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

This has self-promotion written all over it. I don't think this guy is significant in any way. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  01:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- Self-promotional in tone, yes. Mostly rubbish, yes. "Biocognetic" a neologism with no clinical or research significance, yes. BUT... the guy has written a lot of books and has plenty of news coverage for those books. J L G 4 1 0 4  02:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The books are all self-published and I don't think they've had much news coverage.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  02:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a ton of coverage, but sufficient, I think, especially in conjunction with presence of books on major suppliers. Hey, I don't like this kind of stuff, but he's made a name for himself, even if he's done it all by himself (including through self-publishing). J L G 4 1 0 4  03:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —John Z (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep if someone is willing to brutally trim and rewrite the article in accordance to the subject's notability.  LinguistAtLarge &bull; Msg  04:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried precisely that-- "brutally" trimmed it (see history). Was reverted by nom. (Well, also reverted by CardinalDan using a bot, but that was my own fault for not indicating what I was up to in the edit summary). J L G 4 1 0 4  15:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unless anyone can prove that "biocognetic" is anything other than a cryptic self-help self-published concept, I don't consider the man who made it up to be notable. Richard Hock (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Almost a speedy delete as self-promotional. claims notability based on the notable people whose work he is interested in, nd a vagueseries of "endorsements", DGG (talk)
 * Delete per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. The article history shows it was written mainly by a PR company.  The question of course is whether it could be re-written to be enclycopedic -- and I think the answer is that it can't.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Question - what am I missing here? I didn't think being self-promotional alone was sufficient for deletion, nor whether one thinks the material is hogwash ("biocognetic"). I thought the criteria for notability, and hence inclusion, had mainly to do with media reach and saturation. My "keep" vote fully acknowledges both the self-promotional and the scientifically dubious aspects of the piece; however, any quick gsearch will show that he has not only published a lot of books ("self" or otherwise) but is widely reviewed in news media, in such papers as the Washington Post and the Boston Globe. This is not, in other words, just the self-promotional CV of some utterly non-notable figure. For those I always recommened "delete" (as with Jarrod Rogol). J L G 4 1 0 4  14:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * there are reasons for exclusion as well as inclusion. If the article contains so much promotional material that it seems that such is its only purpose, and there is no easy way to rewrite it to be encyclopedic, then it can be speedily deleted. To me, it reads like an advertisement for his views, and I see no way to rewrite this article to show whatever notability there might be, DGG (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete . Pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I still do not think he passes WP:PROF, but I have revised my recommendation because I think he does meet WP:BIO based on the media coverage. The PR angle indeed was way out of line, but I think that the revised (and massively reduced) version of the article that JLG4104 created should be kept. I restored JLG4104’s revision, which should stand; editors should "feel free to edit the article" (as indicated in the deletion template) while AfD discussion is taking place.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I cut it way down to what I believe is an acceptable stub. J L G 4 1 0 4  00:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, my changes were reverted by Chowbok-- the nominator-- as not appropriate during the AfD. Could somebody explain why (because there certainly is no rule against it-- the rule is against blanking only). If the article was considered a load of self-promotional garbarge and in danger of deletion, but somebody could find a way to revise it-- albeit radically-- to make it a more acceptable article, then what's the problem? I made a good faith effort to both (a) save the article, and (b) make it acceptable (as a stub). I retain my keep vote. By any notability standard I understand, he is notable. Forget the rubbishy stuff-- he's got a number of books out which have received reviews in major press (which I already said above; sorry for repeating myself). J L G 4 1 0 4  12:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comments JLG4104, and with Gwern below. Indeed, the original version was soooo self-promotional as to be a magnet for deletion requests and votes. Please see my comments above, under my revised recommendation. Let's see what the other editors think, but I believe that we should all thank you for your persistence.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the delete votes are either being distracted by the PR content, or haven't looked very hard for sources. A quick LexisNexis & Factiva search turns up several hits, like 'The Washington Post, Martial Arts for Peace; Black Belt Psychologist Teaches Kids How to Handle Bullies Without Fighting, Carol Krucoff, Special to The Washington Post, March 05, 1996, Tuesday, Final Edition, HEALTH; Pg. Z22; HEALTH PLUS, 841 words' (the entire article is on Doyle and his ideas - a pretty substantial mention), or a review of his book like 'Chop til you drop; R3 Martial Arts Reviews Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), August 19, 2000 Saturday, COMPUTERS; Icon; Pg. 10, 940 words, Lissa Christopher', or another article on his views (can't find the title), 'November 13, 1995, Monday, AM cycle, Domestic News, 832 words, By ANNE WALLACE, Associated Press Writer'; or short mentions in 'Program helps kids avoid fights, LINDA WEINER SELIGSON Daily Record staff, 500 words, 20 May 1994, York Daily Record', or just a short article like 'Book says don't get mad, get nice, AP 167 words, 20  October 1995, The Boston Globe' (the book is Doyle's of course); then there's this article on one of his courses, 'Karate secret stops bullies within reason, Steve Blow, 750 words, 20 March 1996, The Dallas Morning News, HOME FINAL, 37A'; another good one is 'HERE ARE SOME WAYS TO AVOID BEING BULLIED, LARRY AYLWARD, 731 words, 18 November 1995, The Plain Dealer, FINAL / ALL, 1E.' And I haven't included the trivial mentions (recommendations of his books, or a quote, they are usually), or searched more thoroughly. --Gwern  (contribs) 21:24 13 February 2009 (GMT)


 * 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.