Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Executive summary


 * 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. v/r - TP 15:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Executive summary

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is virtually no significant coverage of the concept of an 'executive summary' to be found. The reasons given for the removal of the PROD were that (a) the term is used a lot, ie. WP:ITEXISTS; and (b) the term produces many results on Google, ie. WP:GHITS. An attempt earlier today to flesh it out merely resulted in two examples of executive summaries being added; one from the State Department and one from the IEA. While moderately interesting, these don't substantiate the notability of executive summaries conceptually. This page is treated as a reference, although it is simply a short and glorified how-to-guide/dicdef.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and unless there is any detailed coverage of this topic, the article will never progress beyond being a slightly wishy-washy definition page. ╟─TreasuryTag► Syndic General ─╢ 13:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's one of the most widely used ideas in business writing and is a thoroughly well established concept which is taught in business schools. A few moments research would have turned up plenty of reliable sources - for example I've just added one from the UK government together with an example from a major US government publication. andy (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * few moments [sic] research would have turned up plenty of reliable sources - for example I've just added one from the UK government together with an example from a major US government publication – but if you'd actually read the nomination statement, you'd have been aware of my assertion that those do not constitute significant coverage and would presumably have responded to it? ╟─TreasuryTag► sundries ─╢ 13:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously I don't agree with your assertion. IMHO the State Department is a notable body and helps to establish significant coverage. BTW I've now added Harvard as a reference. andy (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that the State Department is a notable body, but you seem not to understand what significant coverage means. The particular 'reference' you provided doesn't discuss executive summaries; it just proves that they are in use = they exist. Perhaps the US Government also uses a particular brand of pen but we can't just start an article on that unless there is coverage of the topic. The random diplomatic document you've linked to is evidently inadequate. ╟─TreasuryTag► Tellers' wands ─╢ 13:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a strange argument. The UK government website I cited in the references devotes a whole page to defining the purpose of an executive summary, which is described as being of major importance. This is surely a "reliable source" that is "independent of the subject". Ditto Harvard Business Schools. Ditto Colorado State University. There are plenty more that can easily be found on Google but I think three major references is plenty enough to establish significant coverage. How many do you actually want? And strictly speaking examples of usages aren't needed but the State Department and the International Energy Agency are pretty good ones. andy (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The 'whole page' is about a third of a page of A4 and is essentially a dicdef, as I said above. More or less could be said of the Harvard reference. What you need to do is take a look at the references used in the article Abstract (summary). That's a good example. Academic papers discussing the use and impact, including the economic impact, of abstracts are what is needed there, and something similar (though perhaps not quite as scholarly!) is what is required here. Not a few how-to guides from a few advice websites. Strictly speaking examples of usages aren't needed – it's not that they're not needed, it's that they're not relevant. ╟─TreasuryTag► Subsyndic General ─╢ 14:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —andy (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Per WP:SK#2 "obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations". Warden (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's traditional, on Wikipedia, to provide some sort of reason when making conduct allegations of "unquestionable vandalism or disruption." It's also traditional (not to mention obligatory) to provide reasoning when commenting in a deletion discussion. But then I'm sure you know all that. ╟─TreasuryTag► Acting Returning Officer ─╢ 16:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note—now that two editors other than my good self get my point, the above speedy-keep should be discounted as per WP:SK, which states that SK2 can only apply in cases where "nobody unrelated recommends deletion." ╟─TreasuryTag► ballotbox ─╢ 17:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, can't see how this would be expanded beyond a dicdef.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, Andy has added some interesting info that takes it beyond dicdef territory. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: little evidence that anything beyond a WP:DICTDEF is possible without immediately turning into a WP:OR essay. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails the general notability guideline, destined to remain a dictionary definition. --Anthem 20:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas . --Tothwolf (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There are loads and loads of reliable sources dealing with the concept of the executive summary. I have added some and provided referenced expansion beyond a dictionary definition. I have tried to avoid it becoming a "how to" guide and becoming an advertisement for all the training material being thrust on potential report writers. Thincat (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ...although your sources do all seem to be "downloadable workbooks" and "writing guides" and self-published "tutorials" which – again – seem to focus on advice and subjective views about technique, rather than on the broad concept. ╟─TreasuryTag► Speaker ─╢ 21:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ... and it being self-published is perhaps why it is only used as a reference for the claim that books are available and not as a reference for the concept of an executive summary. The article itself does not read like a writing guide; such material has not been included. It explains the rationale, scope and structure of the executive summary. These aspects are variable, as for a poem. Thincat (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Self-published sources are not reliable sources ("Self-published media ... are largely not acceptable as sources,") and therefore do not count towards the GNG ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources...") The rest of the material you have linked is all how-to materials. I really don't know how you can dispute that "downloadable workbooks" and "writing guides" and stuff are how-to materials. As I mentioned above, compare this with Abstract (summary) – or even Novel and Job interview. These articles don't rely on self-help books and advisory sources. Such things do exist, obviously, but so do academic writings about the concept of the novel, and the concept of the job interview. It's that sort of coverage ("direct and in detail") which is required here. ╟─TreasuryTag► Storting ─╢ 22:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're wrong about those references. Four of the six references added so far by Thincat originate from academically approved material provided through reputable universities for business education and training. Anyway, describing the commonly agreed structure of something doesn't turn an article into a "how to" guide. What about Harvey Wallbanger for example? Zero academic references, an ingredients list and some background trivia. At least this article can boast an example signed off by Hilary Clinton. andy (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're wrong about those references. Really? Four of the six references added so far by Thincat originate from academically approved material... I never said anything about this... ...provided through reputable universities for business education and training. I've bolded the relevant part. They're how-to guides. Not conceptual discussions. ╟─TreasuryTag► Lord Speaker ─╢ 22:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it looks like you're using a spectacularly poor WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument about a cocktail drink to justify keeping an article about document drafting. But perhaps I'm mistaken? ╟─TreasuryTag► cabinet ─╢ 22:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Question for those arguing keep—please suggest ways in which the article could be expanded from its current dictionary definition state, without becoming a how-to guide. Please propose actual sentences you would put into the article, along with references to back up the assertions therein. ╟─TreasuryTag► Not-content ─╢ 22:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge to Abstract (summary). 'Executive summary' seems to be a notable concept, even if there isn't that much to actually say about it (but that's fine: not every article has to be Featured Article-length). Even if others here don't think that it's notable, it's clearly a plausible search term, so we should have something on it; my second choice would be to merge the content to Abstract (summary) and redirect it there. Robofish (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm torn here; my gut tells me that the subject is rather more nuanced than a mere dictdef, but I don't agree that the current references are sufficiently deep as to back that up. Robofish's suggested merge target is just as weak an article as this one just now and even more lacking in references; I'm not a big fan of rescue-by-aggregation. Much better would be to find a place for this in management, which is the real root topic if we consider this to be a business practice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable subject that is known in the common vernacular and can be found easily online. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ITEXISTS and WP:GHITS then? ╟─TreasuryTag► directorate ─╢ 07:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything that is notable does exist and nowadays will garner a lot of ghits. Although we're encouraged to present detailed arguments at AfD we don't actually have to. If other people have already done so, simply agreeing may be enough - especially when the mood of participants is as overwhelmingly clear as in this particular case. andy (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your logic is fallacious -- that "anything that is notable does exist and nowadays will garner a lot of ghits" does not mean that anything that does exist and garners a lot of ghits is notable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it certainly does not mean that and nor did I say it! Warrior777 said that the term is notable AND it exists and has lots of ghits. TreasuryTag fallaciously said that this was the same as saying that it is notable BECAUSE it exists and has lots of ghits. I merely pointed out that he was wrong in this interpretation - notable things do exist and often have lots of ghits. Any notable modern term that doesn't appear widely on the web is unlikely to pass WP:GNG. Anyway, this is by the bye. The original nomination was about the term being merely a dicdef or howto supported by WP:ITEXISTS and WP:GHITS, but a lot of work has been put into the article since then and I don't see how those arguments can be sustained any more - there are plenty of reliable sources and it's clear that the topic is the subject of scholarly debate. It would be helpful if you could take a look and give us your opinion. andy (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the juxtaposition of the assertion of notability, and the mention of existence and Google hits, combined with the lack of any alternate justification, it was perfectly reasonable for TT to conclude that the existence and Google hits were offered as justification for the assertion. The only alternate interpretation would be that mention of the existence and Google hits were a complete non sequitor, and that the assertion was wholly unsubstantiated (which in no way improves Warrior777's argument). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think they were a non sequitur. Basically all Warrior777 said was "keep because it's notable" - not much of an argument but as I said it's very often the case that participants who agree with a point of view simply say delete or keep because they have nothing further to add. A-n-y-w-a-y what do you think of the article now? andy (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It has expanded from WP:DICTDEF to WP:DICTDEF+WP:HOWTO+HOWNOTTO. In a geological eon or two it might develop into something not-wholly-covered by WP:NOT, but I'm not holding my breath. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources in the article now show the concept has been the subject of professional writing and is an important concept, for anyone not familiar with how business works.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  03:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources in the article thoroughly discredit the argument presented by the nominator. This is a very common term and the plethora of sources available support that. -- Selket Talk 21:36, 17 June 2011 (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.