Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychotherapy: a Personal Approach

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 of the debate was article was deleted at author's request. --F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 00:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotherapy: a Personal Approach

David Smail is mildly notable, but each of his books do not deserve their own page. Mainly, because they are no notable, and they do not add any info of their own. They simply restate information from the David Smail page.Im also nominating his second and third books, Illusion and Reality: the Meaning of Anxiety and Taking Care: an Alternative to Therapy. Pal5017 06:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Mgekelly - Talk 08:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the author has twice removed the {{afd}} tag. — Apr. 16, '06 [11:43] <freakofnur_xture |talk>
Delete all per nom. TimL 16:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but as new page without colon, see below). I removed the deletion tag as I got confused into thinking a bot had wrongly added it (a bot message appeared when I first saw the tag - sorry, that was not intended to be provocative. However, I remain puzzled as there are thousands of books that have their own page on Wikipedia, and I was not aware we had to argue about notability. If so, this seems an impossible state of affairs as its so subjective. I see many novels given pages, which I would regard as less notable than the ones I put up. There is of course no problem with database space in Wikipedia and so no reason to put all the books on one page. Putting all books on separate pages is preferable, I suggest, as it makes them respond to a search by anyone who does not know the author. It also allows them to be Wiki linked to. I have now put up a new page on Taking Care - an Alternative to Therapy. Again this was not meant to provoke, I was simply testing whether the deletion was caused by the colon in the title being interpretted as namespace. The new article contains more information. Will you accept my reasoning? If not, what is your reasoning for not using the advantage given by separated pages. While I accept that minor points of view are not to be given too much weight in Wiki, as against major points of view, books seem to be a different matter. By listing a book we are not 'plugging' it, so long as all books can be factually listed. By choosing to give only some books a page we are indeed plugging them, and on a very subjective and personal basis. --Lindosland 11:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok thats reasonable. You fixed it up, and it does seem like worthwhile information. So how bout a merge per below? Have the descriptions in several subheadings under the David Smail's Books section? That would make it even easier for interested readers.--Pal5017 15:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge with David Smail (same goes for Taking Care - an Alternative to Therapy) unless Lindosland adds such a detailed discussion that the main David Smail article becomes too long; the search engine argument is not valid, you'll find the book even when it's just listed on the author's article. Notability is not the issue, but granularity: As long as the material on Smail is sparse enough to fit on a single article (say less than 50k), creating stubs for every book is spammy. Create a section for each book on the main Smail article. Once the individual sections become too long, branch out via the {{main}} template. dab (ᛏ) 15:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll go along with that, and have just moved content across. --Lindosland 23:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I think this was a good decision. We made it easier for the reader, and we greatly improved David Smail's article. It was a good way to go.--Pal5017 06:33, 21 April 2006 (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.