Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intent 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. Willing to WP:USERFY if needed for some future merger with an appropriate existing article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Intent Leadership

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not sure how to frame this. Only link to this is an article about the book that this concept is placed in. Only seems to define the concept at best, in any event. --  Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 03:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep the article - The article has been edited to improve. Kindly note that Intent leadership is a leadership concept derived from the overall idea of Dissolve the box which is much broader. However, it is believed Intent Leadership deserves a separate space as the idea in itself has a lot to offer. Just like Leadership and Thought leadership there is a need for separate articles on "dissolve the box" and "intent leadership" as each one is an elaborate idea in itself . Please feel free to discuss the same. I hope it addresses your concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs)  — Vartmaan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I hate to say it, but it does not - at least, from my perspective. My concern is that we are not a place to promote your radical ideas.  I've made mention of this on your talk page sometime yesterday, my time zone. To be honest, my concern is that this (and Dissolve the box, since I'm here) won't stand the tests we have for these articles unto themselves, and with a concept such as these, you're going to have a much more difficult time doing this - especially given the purported novelty of these concepts.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unwikified content and seems to be more of a review than an article. If the article has chances of being started again, it's better to start with new materials. SwisterTwister   talk  03:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable concept. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge: Going to provide a parallel proposal from what is being discussed on a similar topic created by the same author from the same book: Dissolve the box. Suggesting slimming down the content of the article and placing it into the article about the book itself. I believe we have a slowly emerging consensus on that discussion; what do you all think? --Pusillanimous (talk&bull;contribs) 05:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As per my comment on the AFD for Dissolve the box, I would not disfavor this. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 07:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's improve the article: Discussions are surely a fair and a transparent way to arrive at informed decisions and i thank you'll for continuously working to improve wikipedia. I specially thank editors contributing for the article on Intent Leadership like Dennis the Tiger, Swister Twister, Alan Liefting and of course Pusillanimous.

As suggested by Swister Twister and if agreed by the other particpants too, the article deserves a chance to be improved. We are not seasoned editors at wikipedia like you'll and may have not followed some of the Wiki Policies or made some mistakes but the intent is certainly in tune with wiki policies :). Professional Students from MBA and Engineering colleges were looking at these articles at wikipedia for information and this made us upload the articles based on reliable references. They first go to Wiki and then go to books for detail understanding :). I will share my experience : While taking a class at the renowned ISB Hyderabad, students immediately googled for the article in wikipedia but did not find them and more and more students wanted information on the topic and wiki is their favourate source. Intent Leadership is being discussed and even about to be taught in some of the colleges of IIM and IIT repute. ICICI Bank has already conducted sessions on Intent Leadership, Dissolving the box etc. with positive feedback.

Just to share few more information: Industry leaders (Chief Innovative Officer, Chief Managing Directors, Vice Presidents etc.) from different parts of the world have been positively discussing it in Harvard Blogs and have even given positive comments via emails (which can be shared in the public domain). National and International press, electronic and television like ET Now, Business Today, Businessworld etc. have found enough food for thought to move beyond "Thinking Outside the Box" and "Thought Leadership" as inclusive and sustainable growth is still missing. Intent Leadership has outgrown "Next What's In" and i hope through our discussions you all will appreciate that it deserves its place in wikipedia as independent article. Dissolve the box is a way of life (all aspects) and Intent Leadership is focussed on Leadership only. Let's improve the article :). In case more clarification is required we will be happy to provide them. Vartmaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 03:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Improving the article will not make the concept any more notable. Also, there are many more important things to do on Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I sincerely believe the article is in line with the WP:GNG requirements. Let's comply with it. Vartmaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 02:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Vartmaan, the article contains resources that point to notability for the book that promotes the idea - in the way of book reviews. Everything else is either primary sources or blog entries - and we need secondary sources for reliability.  The best way to keep this article on Wikipedia is, quite frankly, a pointer to the book, but even then, I do not feel that this concept should be solely promoted by a book to begin with.  Moreover, reinforcing your own point by repeatedly posting in this AFD is not going to change my mind - your actions in actually proving that this is going to meet our general notability guidelines, however, will.  In a nutshell, we don't need sources for the book to prove that intent leadership meets GNG, we need sources for intent leadership to prove that it meets GNG.  While I realize that this may seem like a logical paradox, do understand that we do things this way here on Wikipedia because we are striving to be an encyclopedia - and accordingly, we seek data that can meld well with it.  Watch your talk page for some more personal notes from me shortly. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 01:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge—I've been watching this, and Dissolve the box for quite a while, unsure what to do with it. The terms both get minor press, but always in the context of the book or an interview with the author, never by themselves.  Since Articles for deletion/Dissolve the box has been posted, the path here has become clear to me... Merge both articles into the article on the book they came from: Next What's In. This same comment will be copied over to  Articles for deletion/Dissolve the box.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 14:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A failure to conform to a neutral point of view is usually remedied through editing for neutrality, but text that does not conform to any of the remaining three policies is usually removed from Wikipedia, either by removing a passage or section of an otherwise satisfactory article or by removing an entire article if nothing can be salvaged. This guide deals with the process of addressing articles that contravene Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, which are often listed or "nominated" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Articles that violate Wikipedia:Copyrights are listed on the project page for copyright problems for further action. When an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than seven days, in order to come to a public rough consensus about whether the article is unsuited to Wikipedia. Following seven days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly." I have tried to follow all the four pillars in spirit. Neutrality may be a concern where i would like to rework and would also like to take help of other wikipedians. In the article i have simply quoted from the references so that i do not inject my point of view. But still i would like to have a relook into it. I hope my approach of "quoting" is correct as far as neutrality is concerned, if not kindly guide. Thanks. Vartmaan (talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC). If you'll believe the article is out of proportion, or needs improvement edit it but deleting and merging the article will not be in accordance with the WP:GNG guidelines. Kindly reconsider your view in a fair manner. Thanks Vartmaan (talk —Preceding undated comment added 05:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC). Dissolve the box : Editors are of the view that the references talks about the book and the author. Santosh Sharma: Editors are of the view that the references talks of the book and the idea. Next What's In : Editors are of the view that Next What's In is non notable and The Hindu reference (which was established in 1880 with 4.1 million readers as unreliable) Intent Leadership: Like Dissolve the box article editors are of the view it talks of the book or the author. This does not reflect an objective assessment. Request you'll to reconsider your stand and be fair to arrive at a conclusion. Once we decide the articles to remain in wikipedia i can rework on the article for the encyclopedic content though i have been mentioning the content in the articles is simply quoted from the reliable references and not mine. Thanks "User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan]] (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.39.108 (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG guidelines - When Leadership by intention or "Intent Leadership" has been covered by majority of the National and some International media by giving its cause (Law of Fine), the platform from which it arisies (not the mental boxes but the field of all possibilities and infinite creativity) and detailed examples (of the sheep)and explaining how it is different from Thought Leadership (or leadership by thinking outside the box) along with its implications and benefits of leadership by dissolving the box, it can certinly not be termed a "minor press". As per the WP:GNG guidelines "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". This article has certainly not got a "trivial mention" but much-much more. Some of the articles are more than 500 words and approximately 20% of the articles have covered Intent leadership and matter related to it spread all accross the articles (introduction, body and conclusion) . This is certainly not trivial considering its weightage in the articles published on its own and if we see them in the context of the media in which it is covered (in terms of source, circulation, reach, quality, objectivity, reliability etc.) it is certainly not minor press. Thus, we should allow this article to remain as per the WP:GNG guidelines. Vartmaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 04:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable concept. A little bit of press coverage now does not establish encyclopedic relevance. Vartmaan, will you please start signing your messages? Drmies (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea is notable as per the WP:GNG guidelines. It is much more than a trivial covereage as the cause of Intent Leadership is explained, examples are given to support and relevance is given for a practical implication. The references do not just have a trivial mention of the concept. The idea is not only covered in press but it is being taught(refer to the IIPM link), practiced and even endorsed by industry leaders and academia. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable and in line with that all the references provided are reliable and verifiable. So deleting this article will not be in the spirit of Wikipedia.Vartmaan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 07:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it is not. You don't have to repeat yourself for every "delete"--and please start signing your messages. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I went through the articles for deletion (AfD) once again and all the pages related to it to understand the spirit of wikipedia all over again. What i found that wikipedia is based on basically four pillars to quote "All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules, including three cardinal content policies (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research) and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Together, these policies govern the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia, and only text conforming to all four policies is allowed in the main namespace.
 * Redirect or delete - there's nothing here but an essay summarizing the concept, and a fringey one to boot. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just went through the link on Fringe theories which says "The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence".
 * I have written 4 articles based on the reliable references we have got - Santosh Sharma, Next What's In, Dissolve the box and Intent Leadership. The comments i have got from the editors are as follows
 * Comment for Vartmaan - Forgive me, as this will sound rude, but it's time to be blunt. The long and short of this is simple: you need to prove to us that this article meets our general notability guidelines, which, as you have repeatedly pointed out WP:GNG, you should be very familiar with by now.  Your repeated posts in here are not helping your case.  What will help is if you can alter the article in such a way to demonstrate notability of this independently of the book.  The end.  In short: don't sell us on why it's notable when it's not, prove that it's notable independently of the publication.  That, alone, will change our minds. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 02:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment for Dennis The Tiger- Dennis you are doing your job as an editor and therefore there's nothing to be forgiven, in fact i am happy that you have been continuously working to improve wikipedia. What i am concerned about is what i have mentioned in the above earlier comment where the editors are not consistent and objective. For the idea, they say the reference talk of the book and the author, for Sharma they say the references talk of the book and the idea and worst is for Next What's In where they say the references are not reliable when the references are from more than a century old leading publising house of India with more than 4 million readers daily. This actually has created a trust deficit but i would still like to clear the concerns. It is very clearly mentioned in the WP:GNG guidelines on notability that 1) "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." 2) I have deeply understood this WP:GNGguideline and nowhere it is mentioned, or even hinted that the coverage of the article should be standalone or cannot be clubbed with any other matter. In fact it is done otherwise where the guideline clearly states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Kindly explain what do you mean by "IT NEED NOT BE THE MAIN TOPIC OF THE SOURCE MATERIAL". I have been repeating this point because i have not got an answer till date for this point. I have just been told that "no it is not a significant coverage" but i have not got an answer to this point. So in the first place why do you need me to "demonstrate notability of this independently of the book"? It's not required. I hope you are not misunderstanding me of repeating it again. I do not want to waste your valuable time. Dennis i will be travelling for my outdoor lectures so there may be a slight delay in my response. Kindly forgive if i have hurt you in any way. It's absolutely unintentional.Thankyou "User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan]] (talk]  —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated comment added 03:05, 15 March 2012 (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.