This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
While it may make sense to have a Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness category for purposes of new religious scholarship, adding notable students of this spiritual movement to this category does not make sense. Or, if it does, there would be very large "Catholic" and "Buddhist" and "Mormon" categories, and most of the author entries in Wikipeida would have some kind of religious tag (or perhaps an "Atheism") category at the bottom of their page. Just because it is a new religious movement does not mean it deserves any special consideration. -Cyberscribe16:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't subscribe to the reasoning. He is a public figure, who has been publicly associated with the movement. I am not aware of any WP policy about this. Is there one? DCDuring16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allen continued to speak as if he were commited to MSIA, its founder, and its teachings as of the writing of the Sept. 2007 Wired article. I am surprised that there isn't some mention of it in the WP article. With a little-known, New-agish thing like MSIA folks get nervous that there is some kind of Trojan-horse meme embedded in the GTD methodology. That is the warrant for including a mention of MSIA in the DA article. I personally think that the book and the approach stand on their own merits and have no connection with any religious "cult", if that word is even a fair characterization of MSIA. People do get enthusiastic about GTD and do seem to go through a period of very high enthusiasm for the system, but this would hardly warrant calling GTD itself a "cult", though journalists seem to like to do so. DCDuring22:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is David Allen categorized as a motivational author? It seems contrary to the substance of his books, his consulting practice, and even his personality in my understanding. DCDuring22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who raised the possibility or why, especially since they added no commentary to either this page or GTD, but I don't agree with the merge. Allen has written other books, and although GTD is his signature methodology, he stands sufficiently well-known in his own right to have his own page (he is regularly interviewed by major news sources around the world, cited in books and otherwise referenced as a leading figure in productivity). Natebailey (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
