Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Wilke

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Aerospeed (Talk) 22:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Wilke

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

This is a hard one to categorize because the subject's wears many hats - author, management consultant, psychologist. He did appear on Bill Maher in 2001. (So have thousands of other people). The article claims the subject had a 100,000 listener radio show, but the reference (#3) makes no mention of it. The Steve Wilke author page on Amazon appears to be mixing several Steve Wilkes together but the likely books Wilke actually authored don't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR notabililty standards. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think his likeliest chance of meeting WP:BIO is WP:CREATIVE (same as authors - seems mostly notable for creative works), but I'm having no luck finding anything to support that. This [1] is a report of one of his seminars, but a closer look at the website shows any member of the armed forces can contribute content, so it's pretty much a blog entry by the guy who wrote it. There seem to be a number of places that sell his 2 books, but no reviews anywhere that I could find. If his radio show can be better sourced he might qualify under WP:ENT. Dcs002 (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wilke falls into a peculiar area where many men like him lie. Essentially he is scholarly in his two well known books for the novelty in their ideas and research. I think he best qualifies for WP:Creative #2 "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." Like most scholarly authors, their books are often only read by a select few, though this does not disqualify them for notability. He just happens to be one of those topics where there is not that much literature and thus not that many references, but Wikipedia rightfully contains many articles on the scholars who specialize in more obscure topics. Wilke falls into that category and thus should qualify under #2 of WP:Creative. Also, I checked the Amazon page and can confirm that all of them were written by Wilke. Albeit he strangely seems to always include his wife in the authoring of his books. The books that aren't listed here on the Wikipedia page seem to be more popular literature in character than these two business management philosophy books listed here, which fall under scholarly. Brookspowell629 (talk)

Comment (Please sign your posts. :) I think it's a bit of a stretch for him to qualify under #2. He isn't known for originating Family Systems (that was his advisor, James Framo). He adapted it for use in corporate settings. His adaptation is arguably original, but is he known for that, as documented in RS? I also disagree that his books represent scholarly works. They are not written for academic audiences. They are written for general audiences and clients of his Corporate Family Systems work. I think they fall under the headings of self-help and popular psychology rather than scholarly work. For notability as a scholar (academic), WP:NACADEMICS applies, and criterion #7 might be relevant. Unfortunately, that page says "Patents, commercial and financial applications are generally not indicative of satisfying Criterion 7." His work has been a commercial application of the scholarly work developed by Framo. But back to WP:CREATIVE, I had a brain hiccup and didn't look for other books by Wilke, so I didn't see Answers to Anxiety (I do series) or Dealing with Depression. If they have received adequate coverage, then he might qualify under WP:CREATIVE standard #3. I'll do another search soon for reviews of these books. If his collected works have been the subject of multiple, independent reviews in RS, he will "likely" qualify under WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE. Dcs002 (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some things I found: Answers to Anxiety is recommended by Christian Counseling & Educational Services [2]. It's one in a list of four recommended books, but only a mention - no in-depth coverage. All four books are published by Sonkist Ministries (originally, I think) and LEADon, both of which are founded by Wilke (Rebecca Wilke co-founded Sonkist Ministries), and are therefore self-published. I found no reviews of any of the four books which Steve Wilke authored or co-authored. The joint bio for the couple on Amazon says they "serve as radio media consultants on Marriage, Family, Mental Health, and Educational issues." I wonder if that's the radio show reference - that they are interviewed from time to time on some radio show. Yes, he has a Ph.D., but that doesn't make any of his works scholarly, and none of them appear to be - certainly not the four we've identified so far. And I see nothing to indicate any of his books are well known either. This all strengthens my !vote to delete. Anyone can self-publish and run self-help seminars. I see nothing more here. In cases where notability is marginal, my bias is to keep, but this doesn't strike me as even marginal. Dcs002 (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiachra10003, this page [3] at Amazon shows our author and his four books. As an author, he goes by Dr. Steve Wilke. Dcs002 (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those were the titles I thought were his. All of them are published by LEADon (as mentioned above, that means self-published) and have Amazon Seller Rankings in the 4 million to 5 million range - i.e. almost no sales at all. I'm leaning more strongly to Delete than I was when I nominated the article. Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but I want to offer a caveat: Those Amazon seller rankings are live numbers, apparently within a rolling time period. They don't adequately reflect sales in previous years. A book might have had a serious impact, but its sales have since waned. For example, a friend of mine wrote a special-interest book, published in 2010, and ranked in the 200,000's last December (VERY impressive, and a total surprise, given his narrow target audience), but it's around 1.6 million now. Still, that book was the subject of at least nine independent reviews, four of them in academic journals. (He wasn't even targeting academics when he wrote it. He has no college degree, but they consider it a valuable work.) It remains a very important book in his field - the seminal work, in fact, on the subject he covered. (And it was self-published, as specialty books often are.) I know, it's just one bit of information in your decision-making, and I don't disagree with you, but I wanted to point that out. Dcs002 (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Upon doing a google search, and from knowing Gary Thomas (author)'s works very well (I wrote the Wikipedia page on him), I know that Wilke has been extensively quoted by Gary Thomas (who sold over 1 million copies on his Sacred Marriage alone). Here is the link to the google search of all the blog posts that Wilke is quoted in or guest posted in (link). I know for a fact that he made it into the reprint of Sacred Marriage, as well as a few of Gary's other books, and coauthored The Sacred Search. Yet even though he has all that influence in that sphere, his business books have even more influence, that influence is just harder to account for because the books are used internally by management in corporations. We run into this "problem" at Princeton University in business/entrepreneurship courses I'm in because often some of the most "creative" scholars (as Wikipedia would define them) aren't largely quoted because they are used internally by powerful corporations, who like to share externally almost nothing. It is just sort of word of mouth which books are considered of big influence and thought changing. Wilke's book does that for emphasizing and mapping out how intentional work culture and relationships can increase profits and is the other necessary side of the coin to standard business operations. Thomas's citations of Wilke show how influential he is in a domain that he doesn't even specialize in, this is something that could be reasonably attributed to his work on corporate culture. Brookspowell629 (talk).

Comment These are neither multiple nor independent sources. Blogs are never considered reliable sources under WP:BLP unless written by the subject, and about himself, and then it does not count toward notability. These blogs would not be independent sources anyway because the subject himself is a contributor. In order to be a useful source, Gary Thomas' books would have to give Wilke significant coverage, and Thomas must, in addition, be independent of Wilke. The fact that Wilke is a regular contributor to Gary Thomas' blog, and the fact that he "coauthored The Sacred Search" (with Thomas, I presume?) is pretty clear evidence that Thomas is not independent of Wilke. (However, co-authorship can contribute to notability under WP:AUTHOR, standard 3.) Wilke cannot inherit notability by virtue of co-authoring with a notable author. In any case, we would need more than one source to establish notability. When establishing notability, what's required by WP:BIO are "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (emphasis added). Numerous citations by one source count as one source for notability because they are not "intellectually independent of each other." I challenge the independence of Thomas as a source, and beyond that I challenge that his works would constitute multiple RS to establish notability. Dcs002 (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to address influence on corporate culture. If multiple, independent RS's gives significant coverage to Wilke and his books or seminars or his ideas and philosophy as influencing corporate culture, then I think that should satisfy notability. Business newspapers (or business sections of regular newspapers), business magazines, and trade journals would be a good place to look for such sourcing. Individual corporations and their officers or managers need not speak themselves to this issue or share anything externally. If Wilke has had a significant impact on the corporate world, it will have received coverage in the corporate press. (It'll be no easy challenge to find, given there is a baseball player, a guy arrested for helping a convicted killer escape, a tennis player, the dean of students at Southwestern, and the city manager of Lake Mills, WI, all named Steve Wilke.)

For an example of how a person can become notable for his influence on corporate culture, see Stephen Covey. One needn't be quite that notable to qualify, but certainly "powerful corporations, who like to share externally almost nothing," did not adversely affect Covey's press coverage. Dcs002 (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Brookspowell629, you have done a great deal to improve this article, but there is still inadequate sourcing. All content about Steve Wilke is either self-published or from Amazon, except the Bill Maher appearance. (The AFTA article is about Framo, not Wilke.) The cit given for the couple's radio show did not support the claims made or the listener numbers, and in any case it is from the couple's own website, not an independent RS for potentially contentious information. (They have a COI to provide higher numbers and greater importance.) I have a hunch there is more out there, but I have looked pretty diligently and not found any, yet I am not familiar with sources for Christian ministries or reviews of Christian books. I don't like deleting articles that look marginal, but this hasn't yet met notability requirements, not even marginally. I do hope you can find RS, either in the corporate literature or the Christian literature - wherever. Deletion is an unpleasant undertaking. Dcs002 (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Brookspowell629, you are only allowed one !vote. You have !voted twice. I'm sure that was not your intention, but please ~~strike~~ one of your !votes. Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only third-party resource is the Bill Maher show, which I cannot view, but the remainder of the resources are books and articles by the Wilke's. The only books that I could find listed by Leadon Press were those of the Wilke's, which does indicate that it is a vanity press [4]. Does not meet WP:N. And may I say that I find it highly offensive (and this is an aside, not a vote) that all of the books listed were co-authored by a husband&wife team, but that the only WP article and the only Amazon author page is in his name. Really? In 2014? LaMona (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 21:59, 19 September 2014 (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.