Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrence Webster-Doyle (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The consensus is clear on this one. However, if someone wants to start over then I would suggest starting with a new userspace draft. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Terrence Webster-Doyle
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Borderline Notability but total WP:SPAM, pioneer in the non-existiant field of "BioCognetics" (One hit in books, none in scholar) Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, as with the last nomination. I still see no indication of notability. The previous debate was closed with the comment "Keep and clean up", but in a year and a half it is still completely spam. I think if this were cleaned up there'd be nothing left.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  20:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Forgive me if I edit this talk space incorrectly, please cleanup as needed. Having lent a hand in the cleanup from it's prior iteration (if you compare it to the previous deletion round, it's been severely trimmed and tuned), I have a small part in it's history. I think the perception is that this is a marketing pitch (certainly some of the much earlier versions were), but I'm not really seeing this as an ad. For one, it's not really selling anything, just describing the philosophy behind his writings. Chowbok, as you've been quite vocal in the deletion, twice, is there a way you can turn this into an acceptable article? The man has written a boatload of books, his works are cited, applauded and used in a variety of Martial Arts and Peace activists programs, and he's received some major accolades in the world of Martial Arts as well as Peace, Child Welfare, Tolerance and other clearly more noble causes than say, snake oil, self help, or religious organizations. Fringey? Sure. Esoteric? Most definitely, but a guy that ties together Krishnamurta, Bohm, and other, wraps it together under Martial Arts, and mangages to help kids from Inner City slums fight bullying, turn Liberian Child Soldiers into somewhat more normal citizens, well, it *IS* going to be a niche market and esoteric. Don't let that rob the article of validity. I'd say the guy is relevent, it just needs more guidance for removing the resume or PR aspects.--RenaissanceWarfare —Preceding unsigned comment added by RennaissanceWarfare (talk • contribs) 03:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think he's notable. His books are self-published, the citation list dubious. I'll change my mind if you point me to reliable sources that show his notability, but right now, I'm just not seeing it.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  04:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, here is what I dug up in the first couple pages of Google results (and again, please pardon my formatting errors):

Aside from his books being for sale everywhere, Amazon, B&N, Random House, Weatherhill, and hundreds of Martial Arts stores, there are the following other references:

Article in Ohio University's 'Institute for the African Child Interdisciplinary Journal': http://www.afrchild.ohio.edu/CAJ/articles/BioCogneticCAJ2009.pdf

Various Dojos and anti-bullying educators all across the country integrate his works into their programs: http://www.uamadojo.com/about.html http://www.lifeskillsschool.com/taekwondo.nxg http://www.iparenting.com/dad/5305.php http://husd.k12.ca.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=233&Itemid=219

Also included in many "Recommended Reading lists" from Dojos and other educators: http://www.pkmartialarts.com/parents.htm http://www.isaacfawlkes.com/studyguideonline/Study%20Guide%20online.pdf http://www.discoverhumanrights.org/Peace_and_Justice_Books_for_Teens.html http://pbskids.org/itsmylife/friends/bullies/print_books.html http://greendove.net/childrensbooklist.htm

Interview with Massachusetts School of Law Educational Forum on the topic of Bullying, 2004: http://www.mslaw.edu/MSLMedia/EdForum/91%20Educational%20Forum%20Bullying.htm

MA Success Magazine Interview, 2004 (Couln't find online Magazine, only an archived Article): http://www.masuccess.com/articles/the%20force%20is%20with%20him.pdf

Cited in Black Belt magazine, Feb, 2003 and described as one of "the most respected leaders in the martial arts industry": http://books.google.com/books?id=N9sDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT18#v=onepage&q&f=false

Review in Yoga Journal, Summer/Fall 1990: http://books.google.com/books?id=h-kDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72

Cited from Unitarian Universalist Faithworks Lectures, 2004: http://archive.uua.org/re/faithworks/fall04/curr_ppjn.html

was originally published by the Institute for Peace & Justice newsletter, July 1996.

Black Belt magazine actually sold his videos for a time as well (their promo, not his): http://books.google.com/books?id=nM4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA156#v=onepage&q&f=false

Brief writeup in Hinduism Today Magazine, 1995: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=3479

RennaissanceWarfare —Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC).


 * Seems like pretty thin gruel. Those are all fairly obscure sources or minor mentions, and anybody can sell their books through Amazon. I'm not convinced.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  06:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * RS and GNG don't care if a source is 'fairly obscure'; RS is a pretty binary distinction. Either eg. Black Belt is a RS, or it isn't. --Gwern (contribs) 13:51 6 September 2010 (GMT)
 * Okay, but to take that example, the Black Belt reference is a single offhanded mention in a two-paragraph story.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  19:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at it, but maybe it's not a major reference. Feel free to look through the 130 other hits on Terrence Webster-Doyle in Black Belt. --Gwern (contribs) 19:55 6 September 2010 (GMT)
 * most of the "hits" look like advertisement that were scanned in with everything else in the mag. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I Did some further digging, and while some of his books are self published, he is also published by the "world's largest English language general trade book publisher" Random House (see http://www.randomhouse.com/author/results.pperl?authorid=61681 ) as well as distributed by Shambhala Publications (see http://www.shambhala.com/html/catalog/items/author/768.cfm ). As far as obscurity, well, I don't know what criteria you're after. Yoga Journal has over a million subscribers worldwide, Hinduism Today Magazine has a quarter million, and Black Belt has over 100,000. Irrespective of the single "offhanded" mention, there is also a 3 page article on his works in the Aug. 2003 issue (see http://books.google.com/books?id=8tsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RennaissanceWarfare (talk • contribs) 20:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrence_Webster-Doyle&diff=prev&oldid=275277852 Sorry I didn't get my comments entered. Dr Doyle asked me to trim out all the unneccesary stuff, his website has the details, he was just wanting the briefest description of his influences and works) ] WP:ROPE and WP:BOOMERANG seem to applyWeaponbb7 (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and no, I don't work for him or any affiliated companies of his. RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)RennaissanceWarfare
 * You are correct, he did contact me and ask me to help trim his article. I know him, but I don't work for him, I don't work for any affiliations, I'm a technoweenie that he reached out to and asked to get rid of all of the tripe that had been written. Take a look at what I did at his behest ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrence_Webster-Doyle&diff=prev&oldid=275277852 ), I trimmed the majority of the article out... not exactly trying to hype him now, is that? :) RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)RennaissanceWarfare


 * Lest I get pilloried unfairly, I'll give you the 30 second synopsis. He's an Author. A Wikipedia entry was created at some point. Go him. Further along, it starts getting inflated and bloated with very PR sounding stuff. It gets nominated for deletion. Insert conversation: "Hey, do you know anything about Wikipedia? It looks like the entry about me is about to be deleted." "Hmm, well, it appears that people think it's purely self promotion." "Really? Wow. Umm, I don't know anything about this stuff (e.g. Wiki, editing pages, et. al.) Is there something you could do to get rid of all the PR stuff? Just trim it to something acceptable?" "Sure, let me see waht I can do." So, I whacked out all of the fluff, inserted some links to other Wiki articles that make sense, and called it good.

I think I've maintained a pretty decent NPOV, Chowbok asked for citations, I hit the handy link at the top, and within two pages of results (out of more than 5000) came up with 18 some odd citations, including 3 different magazines with collectively close to 1.5 million readers, 2 Universities, 2 School districts utilizing his programs, and the National Public Broadcasting System (PBSKids.org), and corrected the assumption that he is completely self-promoted by establishing one of the largest Publishing houses in the world. I'm fairly confident that my conversation with Dr. Doyle is pretty far removed from those results, and I've kept this polite, factual, and informative. I think I've met the burden of Citation proof as requested, as well as RS, GNG and NPOV.

I will add that while there are indeed ads within Black Belt Magazine (which I actually cited), I would point out those ads are placed by the Magazine itself, not a result of Dr. Doyle's paid advertising. Chowbok typified a different citation as "a single offhanded mention", but if the magazine itself finds his works good enough to resell, I think that deserves a little more credit than as a "single offhanded mention". Just my .02

Attack the citations if you must, but I merely brought to light what was described as "spam", non-notable, "obscure" and "self-published". RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)RennaissanceWarfare


 * Weak delete (I don't like deleting articles about academics, so I'm making a long analysis, and giving a bit of advice about making an article about one or two of his books.)
 * WP:AUTHOR has 4 criteria. Article has no RS saying that he fulfills any of this. Then there is WP:ACADEMIC, which has another 9 points.
 * I looked if he could fullfill #2 "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." but I found these problems:
 * "Robert Burns Medal of literature from Austria's Albert Schweitzer Society", I can't find any reference for this medal, and it doesn't even appear listed in the society's webpage. Either it doesn't fit "highly prestigious" or it's only covered in austrian off-line sources? Maybe it's called something else, or it was issued by another society with a similar name, I can't find it.
 * "Benjamin Franklin Award for excellence in independent publishing" is not an academic award but an award given to independent publishers by the association of independent publishers.
 * "National Parenting Publications Award", not an academic award, looks sort of promotional
 * Then you have WP:CREATIVE. His works are exposed in the International Museum of Peace and Solidarity, which is nice, but that doesn't fulfill "#5 d) [his work] is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.".
 * Having 2 books in the "Elementary School Library Collection" is nice, but it's a list of recommended books for elemental schools (by the way, I can't find anything about "British Commonwealth Collection–A Selection of Books and Journals on Non-violence and Social Change")
 * I'll note that the article in Black Belt is not an article about him, it's an article by him about the topic of dealing with bullies.
 * "Endorsed by Scouting Magazine and Sports Illustrated for Kids. Endorsed by Mothering Magazine" Not sure what this means. Did they review one of his books and recommended to read it? Then you have to make an article on the specific book, and cite the bibliographical data for the recommendation: issue, page, article title, article author, and date of publication.


 * Anyways, the major problem is the lack of independent third party sources that have decided to cover this author out of their own volition. The only reference that could fit that is an article in Young Children magazine from the National Association for the Education of Young Children, I'm not sure if it covers his work as a whole or if it is just reviewing specific books. If this is a non-trivial book review, and if the "recommendations" in those other magazines are good independent coverage of those books, then one or more if his books could fulfill #1 in Notability_(books) "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience.". Please notice this caveat: "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary".


 * I see a few personal endorsements, but those needs to be published somewhere by an independent source, sorry.


 * Awards are difficult to find, and it's difficult to nail this stuff because all items lack important data (date of awarding of the medal, issue where the recommendation was published and title, who gathered those personal recommendations, etc). IMHO, this author goes into borderline notability. Some of his books might be notable by themselves, but that's a different topic, and current sources in the article don't warrant that. Article lacks a "smoking gun" that makes me say "yes, this fulfills point X of guideline y". --Enric Naval (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Enric, thank you for taking the time to describe the process, as it helps a lot. I completely understand some of what you're illuminating. Imagine having Bruce Lee's widow endorse your work, just nowhere citeable... :)

I was able to group together the citations and references I could find, so let me quickly throw them against the wall, and you can help me discern what is useful, and what is not. Hopefully the following can close this discussion, and lead to the article itself being written better.

Here's what I've got, let's see how these line up against the criteria (that you clearly get, and I'm just learning). Please note that acouple of these *appeared* to come up as valid in Google's results, but was unable to actually display the text on the screen, so I'm taking them on good faith:

citations by other authors:

http://books.google.com/books?id=L_xGAAAAMAAJ&q=webster-doyle

http://books.google.com/books?id=D5m7e0bdT4UC&pg=PT19

http://ejmas.com/proceedings/GSJSA02klens.htm

http://issuu.com/walkerdesign/docs/madison_sports_monthly_july (see page 21)

http://books.google.com/books?id=R88L6WbD4sgC&q=%22terrence+webster-doyle%22

http://books.google.com/books?id=MhcSAQAAIAAJ&q=%22terrence+webster-doyle%22

http://books.google.com/books?id=FPr_zuUGqVMC&q=%22terrence+webster-doyle%22

May/June 2001 Mothering Magazine article cited:

http://books.google.com/books?id=wz6UIHwClooC&pg=PT364

Inline citation as resource:

http://books.google.com/books?id=hcc1jQBCT2AC&pg=PA76

http://books.google.com/books?id=93tHAAAAMAAJ&q=%22terrence+webster-doyle%22

Works were part of a published Clinical Application:

http://books.google.com/books?id=pum5j7r5YloC&pg=PA358

Psychiatric Association Reading List

http://books.google.com/books?id=hmJLAAAAYAAJ&q=%22terrence+webster-doyle%22

'Resources' or 'Further Readings' of different Authors' Books or magazines:

http://books.google.com/books?id=rQGR_E7pdJ8C&pg=PA70

http://books.google.com/books?id=oC4SjKZVA_YC&pg=PA268

http://books.google.com/books?id=GjCntWpcx7YC&pg=PA55

http://books.google.com/books?id=9Tl0NJOUjUoC&pg=PA191

http://books.google.com/books?id=krNZVsI7wRgC&pg=PA191

http://books.google.com/books?id=bcBGIxAw9FUC&pg=PA135

http://books.google.com/books?id=tvwDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA50

http://books.google.com/books?id=VK3hAAAAMAAJ&q=%22terrence+webster-doyle%22

http://books.google.com/books?id=Xh1EbRx93FUC&q=%22terrence+webster-doyle%22

12 Paragraph review of 'Karate: The Art of Empty Self' in Yoga Journal:

http://books.google.com/books?id=h-kDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA72#v=onepage&q&f=false

1 paragraph review of a different book in Yoga Journal:

http://books.google.com/books?id=VukDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA106

Review in Kirkus Reviews:

http://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/childrens-books/terrence-webster-doyle/facing-the-double-edged-sword-the-art-of-karate/

Black Belt Magazine references:

3 page article in Black Belt by him:

http://books.google.com/books?id=8tsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false

Described as "acclaimed author" and 2nd of 3 explicit mentions as "respected leaders in martial arts industry"

http://books.google.com/books?id=N9sDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT18

Described as "nationally acclaimed author" to teach at seminar:

http://books.google.com/books?id=m9sDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT104

His lectures at Seminar included in "highlighting events"

http://books.google.com/books?id=SNsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT113

Review of conference, highlighted as 2nd of 6 focus points:

http://books.google.com/books?id=YNwDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT11

credited as contributing writer

http://books.google.com/books?id=dtkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA6

Article itself: http://books.google.com/books?id=dtkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA122

Article about 2004 MAIA Achievement Award (in lieu of actual MAIA article online)

http://www.tangsoodoworld.com/articles/Martial_Arts_That_Are_For_Peace.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by RennaissanceWarfare (talk • contribs) 05:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

2000 National Publications Award mention in Black Belt Magazine

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ys8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT121#v=onepage&q&f=false

Possible Award or citation reference (in German)

http://books.google.com/books?id=Xj51TZaJy3wC&pg=PA225

http://books.google.com/books?id=a4xnqJUNBrkC&pg=PA141

Does that help the discussion and analysis? RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)RennaissanceWarfare RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)RennaissanceWarfare


 * For this discussion, they are not useful because they don't make coverage of the author himself.


 * For making an article about a book, the reviews are all about different books, a review in "Kirkus reviews" is not going to count towards notability. "Karate: the art of empty self" has only one review (I made a brief search in google and in google books, and I couldn't find more)


 * Other issues: the Black Belt magazine talks about a "2000 National Publications Award", and I can't identify it.


 * Sorry, I can't make anything out of this. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as vanity page. Roscelese (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete agree that this is promotional and vanity. BioCognetics itself does not appear to be notable, so being an authority on it isn't notable either VASterling (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - First impression of this article is that it was a vanity piece written to push a POV. The entire section of "Endorsements" was particularly nauseating. Without entering into the debate whether "BioCognetics" is anything more than a concept made up to sell books, I ran a search of ABEBooks to get a sense of whether this was a widely-published author. The author-name search returned results for nearly 400 copies of his books, a fairly massive number. My sense is that this is indeed an individual who meets standards for inclusion-worthiness and also that this article, as written, is an unmitigated disaster. Where does that leave us? Not sure. I suppose blowing this thing up with no prejudice against future recreation in NPOV form would get us there, with strong sentiments that the subject of the article should not be the one writing the next incarnation of the piece. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional comment - If I were writing this bio from scratch, my first line in the lead would be something like "Terrence Webster-Doyle (b. 1940) is an author and educationist specializing in issues of childhood conflict resolution." I think there is a case for notability on those grounds. The whole "BioCognetics" hoo-ha could be brought into play deep into the bio's discussion of the author's ideas, but should not be pushed in the lead. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And another comment - And line two of my lead would be Doyle is best-known for his advocacy of "Martial Arts for Peace" as a means of defusing the problem of school bullying and for his efforts to explain the psychological programming of child soldiers." And then I'd attempt to demonstrate notability on those grounds, which could probably be done. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice - This is actually kind of an interesting case. The original 2007 stub touted him as a high-level martial artist and author (which seems pretty much on the mark) and then the article was spammed out in 2008 by an editor with a total of 6 edits between account formation in 2007 and today. The article needs to be blown up and restarted, I think. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Working from the premise that this article is probably a goner at AfD as currently written, I'm going to spend an hour seeing if it can be salvaged by massive reconstruction. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Bailing and reverting. The job is bigger than an hour. Carrite (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As Carrite says. For me, this just needs some independent coverage to push him into notability. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Carrite, I completely agree with your suggested approach (let it die, and then the simple lead you suggested), and I hope that some of what I've brought to light above makes that easy(er) for you. Truthfully, the subject never wrote this, but I think someone close to him (or his publisher) went gung ho on getting it all in there, and that is what led it down the primrose path it's on. As far as the Biocognetics aspect, from what I understand, his life's work can be best described as "Martial Arts for Peace", and using MA while addressing the bullying (not just for children, BTW) and countering the effects of Conditioning. That is also where most of his accolades come from. It is in recent years he's been building a foundation addressing conditioning overall, and that is what he calls "BioCognetics". Think of it as the base aggregate of all his work on Krishnamurti's and Bohm's premises that is the foundation for the MAfP teaching. I think the Liberia program was the first significant application of the BioCognetics program, which was cited on one of the University links I'd posted above. I'll back away from the thread now, and I appreciate Carrite's perspective. RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)RenaissanceWarfare
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Published work is negligible. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete, there's nothing here for PROF and the media coverage is just not sufficient for GNG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. As was mentioned above there's been a lot of time to clean up this article, a task which the last AfD should have given special urgency to, but this has not happened. It's basically still WP:PROMOTION (the "endorsements" section is especially blatant). The notability situation has not changed either: (1) his books are not widely held by institutions (I checked 2 via WorldCat: "Eye of the hurricane" is in about 40 and "Martial arts masters" in about 30), (2) and his concept of BioCognetics is a neologism whose article has already been deleted, and (3) none of his awards are notable (see above). Independent sourcing is nil, etc, etc. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete. The heavily promotional tone and blatant wikipuffery, besides being a violation of WP:NPOV, makes it impossible for me to pick out any real accomplishments that he might have. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the lack of hits in gbooks and gscholar makes him non notable. LibStar (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2010 (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.