Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuroleadership


 * 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. Jujutacular (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Neuroleadership

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This term is non-notable, it is associated mainly with one particular individual and his enterprise, and there is no evidence of significant acceptance in the fields of brain science/neuroscience and/or management/leadership Lapabc (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There appears to be some use of this term in Forbes, Economic Times, and in BusinessWeek, the latter of which contextualizes it in reference to the sciences and business practice. There's also some coverage of a book by the same name in these German sources, but it's not immediately clear to me that these refer to them same concept.  In any case, while this might seem like a neologism at first, there is actually pretty good coverage of the term that fulfills the general notability guideline.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete In spite of a couple of mentions in newspaper articles, I don't believe that this neologism has achieved enough notability to deserve an article. It is really PR-speak rather than an actual field of endeavor. Looie496 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting what is a trivial mention. The above articles provide in-depth coverage of the subject.  You also can't honestly call this "PR-speak" when the sources above are considered reliable.  There are also entire books published on the subject here and here and it is discussed with some coverage in other leadership books here and here  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment Regarding notability, the claim by the originator who coined the term in 2006 is that this is "a new field of study," repeated in the Wikipedia article. He claims to have "written many of the central academic and discussion papers defining the [field]." However, the originator runs a consulting enterprise that depends on PR. The test of notability should therefore hinge on it being recognized as a new field, not on how successful the PR effort is in getting it mentioned in the mass media -- a defining function of PR. If one searches the academic literature, including psychology, biology, and a subset of neuroscience and so on through the WEB OF KNOWLDEGE, only a single hit is returned. If one searches the entire biomedical literature for all neuroscience and brain science through NLM's PUBMED, only one additional hit is returned. Searching through JSTOR which includes business & economics, humanities, law, psychology, education, social sciences, and more, only one unique hit is returned. The entire English language academic output since 2006 shows only 3 mentions, but they fail the notability test because reading/inspecting the contents of those articles reveals that when "neuroleadership" is discussed it is referenced back to citations to the "Neuroleadership Journal." In what sounds like an academic publication, the "Neuroleadership Journal" is in fact a product of the originator, that exists only on one of his websites. Thus the appearance and use of the terms in the academic fields the originator claims to be penetrating shows that it is a result of the orginator's PR effort, not an accepted new field of study. Furthermore there are zero hits to support the originator's claim of having authored many academic articles. Indeed, the originator claims to have earned a " professional doctorate in the Neuroscience of Leadership from Middlesex University" when a search of that university's degrees and courses of study fail to show that such a degree exists. Wikipedia editors are not necessarily in a position to evaluate academic legitimacy claims, however we can and do recognize self-referential PR efforts. That is what is going on here. The appearance of the term in "reliable sources" by itself does not impart "notability" if they are the result of PR exposure. Wikipedia routinely turns down pages on individuals who are not sufficiently notable, even though they have may authored books (note that the originator does not have a Wikipedia bio page). Wikipedia routinely turns down pages on commercial products. There is objective evidence that this is not a new field of study, while there is evidence that this is part of a commercial PR effort, therefore Wikipedia should turn this down until sometime in the future when the legitimacy and notability are not questionable.Lapabc (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't an article about the creator, it's about the topic, so it really doesn't matter how little credibility the person has because the article isn't about him. The creator also doesn't need an article for something to be written about a concept he has created (see WP:NOTINHERITED).  Your last point about coverage in reliable sources as a result of PR has no basis, because there's no evidence you've offered that this is so except simply saying it is; it makes absolutely no sense why coverage in Forbes and Business Week would be disregarded as PR when these publications are not regarded as PR machines.  They have an editorial board that is well-regarded and if this really was simply PR, there's no reason it would have been received coverage outside of routine PR reporting in these particular sources.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's about the topic which is defined in the questionable Wikipedia page as: "NeuroLeadership is an emerging field of study focused on bringing neuroscientific knowledge into the areas of leadership development, management training, change management, education, consulting and coaching." My comment details non-notability in the fields of management, education, neuroscience, etc in which it is supposed to be an emerging field -- it objectively is not.  As for dismissing my conclusion that penetration into mass media magazines is the result of PR as having "no basis" and is simply an assertion, you are wrong, it is a professional judgement based on experience.  Perhaps you are too credulous in believing that because Forbes et al. have editorial boards "there's no reason it would have been received."  That statement of yours is, in fact, an assertion and a belief.  It's a belief that runs contrary to the way PR is practiced in which edited, respected mass media are specific targets -- see for example: http://www.ereleases.com/prfuel/stories-placed-magazines/  Do not misunderstand that I say we should disregard Forbes et al. because they can be compromised -- that would be absurd -- I am saying that in *THIS CASE* there is a clear and documented PR agenda that is not entirely credible, so the simple appearance of hits in these magazine is not automatically "notable."  I did not raise the PR issue, the other person who voted against this term did. I happen to agree, but I spent most of my effort demonstrating that the communication vehicles of the various fields of study this term purports to represent in fact do not recognize it, in these self-identified fields the term is essentially non-existent and "non-notable." If that situation changes, perhaps a page would be justified, but not now, when the meaning of the term itself can't be supported.  Lapabc (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * it is a professional judgement based on experience. This is also called original research.  I appreciate the amount of effort you've put into your arguments, and I can fully understand why it is frustrating that topics with little scientific basis get attention like this even though they are not recognized in their field, but we will have to agree to disagree here.  There is some additional coverage of this term In the Sydney Morning Herald and The Economist, the latter of which even describes it being "filled with banalities."  It's not positive coverage, but it's press all the same.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 05:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep - This topic clearly passes Wikipedia's threshold of notability, specifically WP:GNG, with entire articles in independent, reliable sources devoted specifically to the topic. Source examples include:, , , , . These are not passing mentions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:42, 8 August 2013 (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.