Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enduring Success: What We Can Learn from the History of Outstanding Corporations


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Enduring Success: What We Can Learn from the History of Outstanding Corporations

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable forthcoming book by non-notable author Pontificalibus (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

book is an extension of a Harvard Business Review article (lead article in 2007 July-August edition). Ideas have been widely discussed following this article and book is expected to have similar impact. Is published in Stanford University Press — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakarima (talk • contribs) 23:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It looks like it will be a notable book and will have an article in February when it is published. However the opening sentence saying it "...is a book" is not true. I don't think WP can start out an article with "will be..." by WP:Crystal. Jaque Hammer (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

but book is already on Stanford Univeristy Press page, plus available on Amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakarima (talk • contribs) 23:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

notable can be mediocre. looks like the ideas are widely discussed online (more than 100 pages come up) and the book has solid endorsements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabare99 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I added criticsm to the article. The structure of the article is now identical to the one for 'Built to Last' - a book that covered a similar question but for US companies (this one is on European companies). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakarima (talk • contribs) 00:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Chrystal, can be relisted if there are significant reviews in the future after it's published, Sadads (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy, have the article creator copy this new version to their userspace where the article still exists in an earlier form, to keep on their user page/sandbox and then repost as soon as the (likely) critical commentary appears next year. The professor may meet WP:PROF at that time as well, and may qualify for a separate article. its just jumping the gun by 1-2 months. I would say keep based on the books credentials, but of course we cant as thats predictive. Needs to be renamed to the main title only, no subtitle in the article name.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep this seems notable enough to me, and I see no reasons not to have an article on it. Edit: Userfying would be okay too, but does somebody actually keep watch of "userfied" articles to make sure they're reposted at the proper time? Esn (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep it's widely discussed already and available from Amazon, B&N, etc.Kabare99 (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — Kabare99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It is? Would you mind supplying some evidence that it's "widely discussed?"  That being said, several of my own publications are available on Amazon and B&N, but that doesn't mean I pass WP:BIO or the GNG.  Obvious WP:CRYSTAL violation, possible COI; make mine Delete.   Ravenswing  17:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * type '4 principles of enduring success' in google.Kabare99 (talk)20:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I did, and turned up the HBR article. That is not, however, this book, and the subject of the article up for AfD right now.  Do you have some evidence to proffer that this book is being widely discussed?   Ravenswing  20:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * meant the HBR article - covers the same points but I guess you are right, this is about a book and not just the content it covers. Sure you know better, I am new to this WP editing Kabare99 (talk)20:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as spam. Otherwise, Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No independent reliable references - Amazon will sell almost anything online/on demand. There must be an element of COI involved here too - I can't see anyone unconnected with the book putting up an article on something like this. People do put articles up about famous authors' next works, based on speculation, and they get deleted. This is too detailed to be speculation, and I wouldn't exactly call the author famous - at least, no-one's put an article up about him here yet anyway. The publisher is notable, but as the book's not out yet (for nearly three months, even...) I don't think an article is called for yet. Peridon (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2010 (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.