Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personality Plus

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 Florence Littauer. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personality Plus

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unknown book by non notable author, it's not even original research, and it seems it has no mainstream press coverage or citation from academic psychologists OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a book and a psychological theory have relevance. This book is used by many sales forces for training their salespeople. Cisco Systems is one of them. It also covers many other things people need to know about people.

The previous commenter seems to have a grudge to bear, calling a book and it's author names, "unknown book by non notable author" does not constitute a legitimate criticism. I found the book useful, why is the critic so harsh without citing any useful facts for his argument for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.52.59 (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone or something "non notable" is not a harsh criticism within WP. Notability is necessary for inclusion. Being a useful book does not suffice that. I have no doubt that psychological theories have relevance, but writing training material based on a psychological theory, no matter which, doesn't make a book notable. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Littauer (the author) has three bestselling books in this series, that still rank well on Amazon.com 20 years after first being published. This is not "un-notable". She has also been a speaker for over 25 years. She is not unknown, nor is her work unknown. A simple google search will pull up many references to her work. Many fortune 500 companies and many churches recommend or require reading her books. The more you criticize her, the more I have to do research, and the more that research shows how valuable she has been for over 25 years.

What is the real issue here? It certainly isn't the work's value. 75.128.52.59 (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing that her work might be valuable for some people, I just don't think it's notable according to Wikipedia:AUTHOR#Creative_professionals. Working for 25 years might be notable on a personal level, working for Fortune 500 companies might be interesting on a personal level, but I don't think that's of encyclopedic value. BTW, are you connected to the author? You both seem to be based on California.OsmanRF34 (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore: the comments on the talk page of this article should also be taken into consideration for deleting it. I'm still of the opinion it has to be deleted long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First things first, that article is a mess. The entire thing was written to where it honestly came across as a promotional page for the book. Much of the article was more written in the tone of someone's personal opinion of the book and how it pertains to other systems, which made it read like original research. I removed a good deal of that. If I can find things to back up the viewpoints I'll re-add it, but I want to discourage adding it back as it was because it wasn't encyclopedically or neutrally written. I'm going to try to find sources and I do think that this could be notable, but I want to stress that just because a book is useful or its author might be notable doesn't automatically guarantee that the book is notable. Being heavily used or having a well-known author merely means that it is more likely that sources exist. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason to keep an article. We have to show independent and reliable sources to show that the book is notable. The only downfall with the book is that since it was written back in 1995 there might not be as many sources on the internet as there would be for a self-help book that was written recently. But again, being a notable speaker or author does not extend notability to the book. Most authors aren't so notable that all of their works are considered notable by extension. To get to that level you have to be along the lines of Shakespeare, Sigmund Freud, and the like. Littaeur is popular and I have heard of her, but I can safely say she doesn't fit within those guidelines. I would also like to request that our IP guest refrain from insinuating that this AfD nomination means that the nominator has a grudge against the book or just wants to delete stuff. That won't accomplish anything and the nominator has a valid point. The article was unsourced and currently doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. Whether I'll be able to find enough stuff to show it does has yet to be seen, but currently there was enough reason to suggest it for AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Florence Littauer. Here's the thing: I can see where the book is popular but unfortunately that popularity didn't translate into a ton of reliable sources that would show notability for the book. Most of the sources are merchant sites, primary sources (stuff by the publisher, Littauer, or someone associated with her), and non-usable blog or forum mentions of the book. However I can see where Littauer herself would probably be notable enough to merit an entry. What I propose is that the book's title be used to redirect to an article about the author, which I'll try to work on and create. If I can find enough about the author via RS to show that she's notable then I'll add it to the mainspace and this book can be redirected to the author's page. If by some chance I can't, this will just have to be deleted due to a lack of sources. I've found only two sources that are usable, the rest being more about the author or just being a routine listing of one of her seminars or appearances.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've created an article for Littauer. There's more than enough to show notability for her, but everything that I've found for her book has it as more of a brief mention while they focus predominantly on her and her history. I've merged pertinent data into the article and showed that it is one of the things she's best known for, but I don't see where the book itself needs an article. Everything is merged, so the only thing left here is to redirect. Before I boldly redirect, I want to verify that this would be a good option for everyone.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recently created page about Littauer seems to me as a further reason to delete the article about the book. It there's something to be say about the latter, it can be said in the former. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly my point. The page about the book itself can be deleted, with the title used as a redirect to her article since redirects are cheap and everything in the current article that's worth saying about the book has already been put in the article about the author. The redirect would help keep the book's article from being re-written because it'd redirect to the author's page for anyone that's searching for it. I think I'm going to go ahead at this point and just redirect the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.