Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Seven Deadly Sins of Business
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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Seven Deadly Sins of Business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Nonnotable book written by a nonnotable author. No hints of notability of either can be found on google, google news, or google scholar. Themfromspace (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since I found a few mentions that I think are not trivial: here, here, and, to a lesser extent, here. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per G11 the "references" found above are nothing more than catalogue entries on the site of a company selling the book. Such mentions do not confer notability Mayalld (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you serious? Look at this from the first one: "Title: The seven deadly sins of business: redemption or resignation? Author(s): Bruce Lloyd, Eileen C. Shapiro Journal: Leadership & Organization Development Journal Year: 1999 Volume: 20 Issue: 1 Page: 46 - 50 ISSN: 0143-7739 DOI: 10.1108/01437739910251206." It's a review! In the Journal: Leadership & Organization Development Journal! It just lists the price because that's what a lot of reviews do! Then, look at the bottom of the second one, the part where it says "MARY ELLEN OLIVERIO, CPA, PHD, is professor of accounting, Lubin School of Business at Pace University." It's a review by Mary Ellen Oliverio, who apparently is professor of accounting at Pace University. As for the third reference, I SERIOUSLY doubt that bbw magazine, the power of plus is the publisher of a book on business practices.
- Administrator, please have a look at those sources yourself before taking Mayalld's word for their content. Mayalld, please check those references carefully, and consider striking your remarks through. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Amazon.com lists but no longer carries this book and points to no published reviews. The offered sources are from a "Leadership & Organization Development Journal", which wants 13 British pounds to read its review; and from an "entrepreneur.com" website. The notability guidelines for books require general audience reviews as part of its baseline test, and neither of those seem to me to qualify. Instead, this seems to be a promotional article about yet another management fad wannabe text. If you frequent these pages you already know what I think. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The reviews linked above are perfectly valid for demonstrating notability - there's no requirement that sources should be available online without payment - and here's a review aimed at a general audience. I share Smerdis of Tlön's dislike of this publishing genre, but I try not to let personal taste cloud my judgement about notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note--honestly, I would have been happy NOT to have found anything that would suggest we keep an article on yet another one such books. But I found it. As for the 13 pounds required to view the article, well, I dislike that too, but plenty of academic publishers in the UK work that way these days (Cambridge UP, Oxford UP, Blackwell...). And the review in Entrepreneur, that webzine is not user-submitted as far as I can tell; the actual review is a reprint from a magazine called Internal Auditor. That's noteworthy enough for WP:N. That Amazon no longer carries the book is of no importance; that they point to no review is also of no importance (those 'reviews' are often just blurbs anyway).
- Again, I urge editors to look at the actual evidence, not just at the URL, and not to let taste get in the way. For instance, I strongly dislike manga and anime and science fiction and fantasy and pokemon and role playing games--but I understand that notability has nothing to do with that. Phil, thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Internal Auditor" does not sound like a general interest publication, either. There has been one review in a general interest publication found, though. If this is kept it should be stubbed until it can be rewritten in a neutral tone. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I urge editors to look at the actual evidence, not just at the URL, and not to let taste get in the way. For instance, I strongly dislike manga and anime and science fiction and fantasy and pokemon and role playing games--but I understand that notability has nothing to do with that. Phil, thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The book appears notable and Amazon is a weak measurement at any time. --Stormbay (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2008 (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.