Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leader Attribute Patterns


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Leader Attribute Patterns

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No evidence that there is a notable concept called ''Leader Attribute Pattern Approach" (the article's original title) or "Leader Attribute Patterns" (the title to which it was moved). I checked Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books and came up with one hit for the latter. Possibly an original research or synthesis piece. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

While there may not be specific articles entitled "leader attribute patterns" on google scholar, there are a number of works that have included patterns of leader attributes. Please check more scholarly search engines like Ebscohost and Psycinfo. There are numerous references in our reference section which are directly related to the Leader Attribute Approach (e.g., Foti & Hauenstein, 2007; Smith & Foti, 1998)—GeorgeMasonIO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.237.110 (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * By writing under a title like "Leader Attribute Patterns", you give me the impression that there is a recognized, attributable discipline by that name, and I should be able to find resources that refer to it. If, instead, none of the writers of the sources you cite makes mention of a discipline by that name to which they consider their work to belong, and if such a name doesn't appear anywhere, then I wonder if the novel act of compiling all this information under a single heading is a form of synthesis. In other words, is this overarching field to which you have attached the title "Leader Attribute Patterns", and to which, in your view, these works pertain, your own original concept? In that case an article by you on the subject might be a piece of original research. I'd be interested to know what others feel about my interpretation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment This is a tricky one...the article seems very well-written and well-sourced, but like the nominator has pointed out, there is no mainstream recognization of the specific topic of the article, and is instead more of an essay about something that is created by synthesis of sources using original research. I'd lean towards delete since the article seems like synthesis. Angryapathy (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Delete per DGG's great research. After taking some more looks at the article and other people's comments, this is definately SYN and OR, and should be deleted. Angryapathy (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Were this a notable, recognized social science theory, I'd expect Google Scholar and Google Books not to draw a blank on it.  I suspect instead that this is somebody shilling for a non-notable management theory or consultancy.  It is only superficially well written; in fact it tends to go on and on while elaborately restating the obvious in a way typical of the genre: ... a perspective of understanding leader individual differences. It is different from traditional trait perspectives. Specifically, it is based on theorists' arguments that leaders are best studied as entire patterns of traits rather than examining individual traits. This allows for an understanding of leader traits that better reflects the reality of individuals as whole entities. A better understanding of leader traits has implications for leader development, selection, and training. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete' per Smerdis, who has a cool last name and impeccable reading skills. Original research, or synthesis at best. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete SYN. Most article like this turn out to be one person's own non-notable but  published slight variation of standard theory  under a self-developed name that nobody else uses; this one hasn't even been published anywhere yet. The most the author claims is there are published articles "relevant to our approach." -- the approach seems to rely somewhat on the work of  Stephen Zaccaro of George Mason University . Even were he to publish it under this title, it would be necessary for notability that other people cite it as significant.    DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 18 November 2009 (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.