Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global leadership


 * 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. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  14:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Global leadership

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Essay, pure WP:OR and WP:SYN violations.  RGTraynor  19:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with the Nominator on all points. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons given.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SYN. X MarX the Spot (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The creator of this article claims to be a lecturer at the University of Liverpool whose students "do not believe things now exist unless they see it on Wikipedia". Here's a tip for you,, that might help where your discussions on RGTraynor's talk page have not:  Your students &mdash; presuming that you are who you claim to be &mdash; won't be any more enlightened by this article.  It is waffle, from beginning to end, that contains not a scintilla of explanation of what global leadership is.  That's why it was nominated for deletion.  It isn't even a good start for an encyclopaedia article.  It tells the reader nothing at all.  If you want to get an encyclopaedia article covering your discipline written, you start with a few sentences that explain, to a general readership, what the discipline actually is (along with citations pointing to sources using which the article can be verified and expanded).  If you really are a published author on this subject, and someone who makes a living teaching people about it, you should have no difficulty whatsoever in writing a paragraph that briefly explains what it is.  Presumably you've already done that in your book, and presumably as an expert in your field that lectures on it you can briefly describe what that field is in coherent, waffle-free, English.  That is what we want.  That is what will make a stub.  Uncle G (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The last two paragraphs of the "article" were copy-and-paste from a copyrighted Web page whose host and author have no connection to the University of Liverpool, so I've removed them , as I doubt that this article's creator can claim authorship of the text . What's left doesn't even qualify as a dicdef. Deor (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, I've just noticed that the Web page's text emanates from someone who "teaches global business courses for several leading international educational institutions such as the University of Liverpool and Southern New Hampshire University" (must involve a lot of commuting), so I've stricken parts of my comment above. Unless Webofculture establishes rights to the text and releases it under the proper license, it still doesn't belong in the article, though. My "delete" opinion remains unchanged. Deor (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mm. I'm not heartened myself about how just about all the Google hits for "E. S. Wibbeke" or "Eileen S. Wibbeke" are either from book flogging sites, blogs, Wiki mirrors or run the exact same self-promotional text.  Reed-Elsevier doesn't publish textbooks from outright charlatans, but we're not their advertising arm, either.    RGTraynor  23:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Original research. Edward321 (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2008 (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.