Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business guru


 * 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. There is a consensus to keep based on the number of sources available that give coverage to this article topic. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Business guru

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks like not notable topic. There is no clear definition and it correlates with consultant Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 16.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 05:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question." The article already references at least two books which demonstrate the notability of the topic: Guide to Management Ideas and Gurus; Guide to the Management Gurus and the search link above for books indicates that there are many more out there. Andrew D. (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The article looks like promotional for the books in references. Also, the topic itself may be notable, but not notable enough for an independent article. After reconsideration I think it has to be part of businessperson Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Those books are by different authors. The publishers are also different and are quite respectable - John Wiley & Sons (endorsed by The Economist) and Random House.  The person who started the article has an MBA and so presumably learnt lots about this topic in the course of that study. Andrew D. (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Article author here. To clarify: I am not trying to promote the books referred to in the article. I also did NOT encounter the "business guru" concept while getting an MBA. Business gurus are more informal than what you read in business school. They're almost a competing source of ideas in business (business school teachers try to be respectable academics, business gurus are more "on the job" thinkers or popularized by people who work in business). "Business guru" is a term that I encountered while working in business. I agree that it's sort of a buzzword, but I think it has broader adoption than other articles on Wikipedia (e.g., technology evangelist or prescriptive analytics). I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia's notability guidelines to know if it should be its own article or if it should be merged somewhere else. Let me know if there's anything else I can provide to help with the decision. --GoldCoastPrior (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. "Guru"'s got no definition a buzzword. It ranked 6th (2013) and 14th (2014) on the Global Language Monitor's list. You could substitute "expert", "authority", etc. How is this any different from Sports guru, Technology guru, Teaching guru, (Insert random subject) guru? Lifestyle guru does have a number of hits, so maybe these could all be combined into one article or just added to Guru. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, it's as if you have not read the article which clearly starts by defining the title as "a leading authority on business practices, especially management."  This is exactly how we are supposed to start our articles per WP:DEFINITION and WP:LEAD.  If you don't agree with that definition then that's a matter of talk page discussion not deletion.  In such discussion, your personal opinion of the topic has no value when we have plenty of substantial sources to confirm the validity and notability of the concept. Andrew D. (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Way to go, chief. Creating bad redirects to try to buttress your argument. A sports guru is not a coach, a technology guru is not an technology evangelist, and education was the best you could come up with for teaching guru? Three Rfd's coming up. I have, however, refined my argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're still not providing a clear reason to delete this topic. Buzzwords get used a lot – that's in their definition – and so it's appropriate for us to create articles and redirects to help readers understand what they mean.  This set of topics lacks coverage here and so, while you're busy creating deletion discussions, I shall be creating articles.  I have made a start with Dylan Wiliam who, as your source indicates, is a notable guru in the field of education. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE. A simple search online or at one's local library will find dozens of good sources. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It has received substantial coverage under that name, books and magazine article in reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2015 (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.