Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outstanding leadership theory


 * 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. This is somewhat borderline, but after weighing the arguments presented by each side, I feel the editors in favor of keeping provided more evidence to support their claims –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding leadership theory

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

This article is an unnecessary fork of content deemed unsuitable for the article Leadership. It documents a concept of questionable notability and POV. Synchronism (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to explain my point of view as the person who created this article: compared to other leadership theories, this one is not notable enough to be featured in the main Leadership article, so I forked it in respect to the person who originally wrote this text. Please refer to this links, if you want more context about the fork. Editor br (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete If (per User:Editor br) it's not notable enough to merit a mention in Leadership, how could it be notable enough to merit its own standalone article? Baileypalblue (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: just because the article does not deserve being mentioned in the leadership article, it does not mean it should be deleted. The theory should be evaluated for its notability by itself. Editor br (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Weak keep - a "theory" ought to turn up in some research databases; this one turned up not once across dozens of academic (and other) databases. Neologism at best.  J L G 4 1 0 4  01:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Props to Coppertwig. I used a university-based comprehensive database, but forgot to check Google Scholar, which digs in further at times, esp, into the text of books. Changing my suggestion accordingly. J L G 4 1 0 4  12:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: I looked in Google Scholar and found:
 * "...Outstanding leadership theory is based heavily on the belief that stress (either individual or organizational) is a key to facilitating the leadership dynamics ..." (Google snippet from "Reframing leadership pedagogy through model and theory building"
 * "... Page 8. These theories have been grouped together under the label “outstanding leadership theory” (House & Podsakoff, 1994). ..." (Google snippet from "Profiles in Leadership: Enhancing Learning Through Model and Theory Building — " (in Journal of Management Education)
 * and from Google Books,
 * A paragraph about it in the book Organizational Behavior I.: Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership by John B. Miner; the publisher, M.E. Sharpe, describes itself as "award-winning publisher of reference books, textbooks, general interest books and journals".
 * This books seems to mention it and talk quite a bit about "outstanding leaders": Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science by Jerald Greenberg; according to the Wikipedia page, the publisher of this book, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates seems to be a publisher of academic books, so I suppose that could be a reliable source.
 * In reply to Bailypalblue: it often happens that something is not notable enough to include in an article on a more general topic, but is notable enough for a more specific article. See WP:SUMMARY. The question here is whether there is enough information in reliable sources that a good encyclopedia article can be written on the topic. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 02:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Forked out for a reason, valid information. POV?  Not getting where the POV comes into play for you. Hooper (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, but this reads like an unreadable tissue of peacock terms and glittering generalities.  If someone can explain lucidly in plain English how this "leadership theory" differs from other such theories, I might be persuaded to change my mind.  Right now, although there is a published book about it, it still looks to me like an article in search of a subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Even though my subjective side says this stuff sounds like so much b.s., the distinction I see being made (in Miner, e.g.), is that "outstanding" = charismatic, transformational, or visionary, none of which is a necessary criterion of otherwise sound leadership. If there was just this one example of the term, I'd figure, ok, that's one author's little neologism, but it does seem to turn up across several sources. Hence my 'weak keep' (weak, because it's still pretty thin-- includable, but thin, in my view) J L G 4 1 0 4  04:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - a moderately reasonable and citable piece of scholarship. I added a ref from an independent book. - 7-bubёn >t 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - do not agree that 3 google books and 3 google scholar results establish notability. The article is useless collection of generalities. Renata (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * delete. Nothing but a summary of a single chapter of a non-notable book that appears to be claptrap. Robinh (talk) 13:23, 22 January 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.