Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Lencioni


 * 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. Courcelles 01:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Patrick Lencioni

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep There's some coverage beyond the refs in the article. All business books are more or less worthless but he plainly has coverage in reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly passes WP:PROF #1 - The five dysfunctions of a team has 484 cites on Google Scholar. StAnselm (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage in the !votes above demonstrates GNG, PROF #1. Article could use a little less fluffery, though. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 19:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 19:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 19:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I cleaned up the article some and cited the references better. He does appear to be have sufficient coverage for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, sufficient coverage, and his book is highly notable, from a reputable business book publisher, well known in business training programs.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:49, 18 January 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.