Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lifestyle guru
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Keep Bad faith nomination from banned user and has some sources. Clearly a keep and it doesn't require an AFD to decide whether to merge or redirect an article so that can be left to editorial judgement. Spartaz Humbug! 21:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lifestyle guru
Unsourced, invented term? Couchbeing (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. There are four sources, each of which mention the term, and at least two of which are about the concept. The concept appears notable and well-sourced. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've blocked the nominator as a sock of banned Sfacets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per sources and banned nominator. Celarnor Talk to me 06:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO. Several sources do not establish such a term. In any case, isn't lifestyle guidance what normal gurus are supposed to do? Guru is to consultant as czar is to administrator among today's conservative-hippie trash. The only folks who call their consultants gurus are those who need to hire someone to fix their lifestyle! Potatoswatter (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. For one thing, our article guru is not about the debased Western concept, but real spiritual gurus in various Asian traditions. For another, this is a valid concept, even if most of us turn up our noses at the idea. From Deepak Chopra to Oprah, the celebrity life-fixer is a fixture in our culture. (Hey, I can remember when Martha Stewart was barely famous.) Today being a lifestyle guru is, like Martha Stewart, being a corporation unto oneself. Not all sources will use this specific term, of course. But I can't think of a better one. (If we do have an appropriate merge target, bring it up.) `--Dhartung | Talk 18:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Potatoswatter, and because this article has no potential for being anything other than either a WP:DICDEF or a WP:COATRACK for criticism of invididual people and trends. Use of the term in sources does not establish that this term is a notable subject for an encyclopedia article. Belongs in a dictionary of slang terms, not here. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into Coaching#Life coaching and redirect. This is certainly no neologism, and the question at stake doesn't concern the exact title - it is whether we should have an article on this subject. And how does this have no potential for being anything other than a WP:DICDEF or a WP:COATRACK? This a a subject which is frequently covered in the media and all of those vomit-inducing "self-help" books. I was going to suggest moving to Life coaching, but I've just seen that that's a blue link that redirects to Coaching#Life coaching where there is already some content on this subject. If that section then gets undue weight in the article it can be spun off to a separate article called Life coaching. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional Agree with Phil Bridger that this topic should have an article, just not under this name which is at best a slang term and at worst intended to disparage and stereotype the subject. Topic is already covered in Coaching#Life coaching. Do not agree, however, that a statement like 'all of those vomit-inducing "self-help" books' really adds anything to the discussion. KleenupKrew (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I see no indication that the use is specific, the term was used as far as I can see as a deliberately non standard phrase for purposes of variety in wording. DGG (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Merge. Although the motivations of the nom may be questionable, PhilBridger brings in an astute observation. This belongs in the Life coaching section of Coaching - indeed, life coaching should probably be its own article. Pastordavid (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2008 (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.
