Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disciplined Minds (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 merge to Jeff Schmidt (writer). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disciplined Minds[edit]

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

The book itself isn't notable; whatever press notice it had is tied to the circumstances of its writing, which are covered in the author's (stub) entry. TheWhangdepootenawah (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment from the nominator) This is a stub article that's stayed a stub article for ten years now. It's so obscure a book that apparently nobody even wants to discuss whether its entry should be deleted. Isn't it time to just put it out of its misery? TheWhangdepootenawah (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with author's page, Jeff_Schmidt_(writer). Gpc62 (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Merge makes a lot more sense, given that the material in the entry is almost all biographical anyway. TheWhangdepootenawah (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Half is about the book, half about the firing controversy. So "almost all" is a bit of an exaggeration. It occurs to me I should have included a reason with my Keep/Merge opinion. My view is that this case boils down to a subjective judgement call -- the book is in a gray area, not obviously (objectively) on the "delete" side of the line by. And my subjective judgement is that a description of the book should be kept in the encyclopedia. The comment "nobody even wants to discuss whether its entry should be deleted" should be rephrased as "nobody among the tiny class of people who are active on wikipedia and who participate in AfD discussions wants to discuss whether its entry should be deleted." Gpc62 (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2017 (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.