Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political Competitive Advantage


 * 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. Deryck C. 11:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Political Competitive Advantage

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

WP:OR and lacking independent coverage. The SPA creator of the article has the same name as the author of the referenced thesis. The only solid coverage I'm seeing in google that uses this term is the authors' website. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply from George Bowen Have removed deletion notice from Political Competition Adv article as is referenced to my thesis deposited at Bodleian Library in Oxford and to me as a lecturer at The Queens College Oxford. What more references do you require if any? Thanks George Arthur Bowen (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)George Arthur Bowen
 * The WP:GNG requires sources that have covered the topic in depth and are intellectually and financially independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2012 (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) 18:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)



Delete This appears to be nothing more than a synopsis of the author's paper and does not include any WP:RS to indicate notability. The references shown (in the references section, not in the long litany of unstructured reference materials in the main article, with which I have no idea what I am supposed to do), only indicate that the author is in fact a lecturer at Queens College, Oxford and that a paper of similar title (though in the textile industry) was in fact written. Neither of those are reliable sources for this article. Even if the author is or becomes notable per WP's policies, (which I don't believe is currently the case) it doesn't mean that every paper written has the same notability. Unfortunately, this article is exclusively WP:OR and should be deleted. I suggest Dr. Bowen read the policies on WP:RS and WP:GNG so he understands what we mean by "reference". We're not saying that the research and paper aren't valuable and important, they've just not reached the point of being encyclopedic. If some reliable sources start widespread quoting or profiling of Dr. Bowen about this topic, then he in fact might become notable and his paper would be used as a reference to his own notability. Vertium '' When all is said and done 09:53, 4 September 2012 (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) 20:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEO. The author (who has a conflict of interest) would be advised to digest the guidance linked to in the welcome message on his talk page, and seek to contribute knowledge to the encyclopedia in accordance with established procedures. Is that non-BITEy enough? -- Trevj (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Author of subject article is encouraged to read and familiarize himself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The subject can be revived (or rewritten) when it becomes notable in the future. GuterTag (talk) 10:56, 13 September 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.