Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychopathy in the workplace


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  J 947  03:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Psychopathy in the workplace

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I agree with the numerous complaints on the talk page about violations of WP:NPOV. This article appears to be an advertisement for the book Snakes in Suits. I agree with this comment on the talk page: "This article reads like a corporate presentation, and it's a tad prejudiced towards people with schizotypal personality disorders. Maybe it should be reviewed for bias." I also agree with this comment from the talk page: "Agreed. How do we motion to delete? This article has numerous problems and promotes a pseudoscience." I also agree with this comment from the talk page: "The sources are very poor, mostly from news articles and popular writers instead of psychology journals. Dutton especially has been criticized for a loose definition of the diagnosis." Bottom line: The article appears to be created to promote and advertise a theory, and is an unencyclopedic form of spam promotion of pseudoscience. Sagecandor (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable because entire books are written about it. Not just Snakes in Suits but also:
 * Working with Monsters: How to Identify and Protect Yourself from the Workplace Psychopath
 * Stalking, Harassment, and Murder in the Workplace: Guidelines for Protection and Prevention
 * Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets
 * Toxic Coworkers: How to Deal with Dysfunctional People on the Job
 * The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't
 * The Good Psychopath's Guide to Success
 * The Psychopath Factory: How Capitalism Organizes Empathy
 * The Narcissist and Psychopath in the Workplace
 * That's just a sample as there are many, many more books covering this topic. If our article isn't perfect yet then, per our editing policy, that's a reason to improve it; not a reason to delete it. AfD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The OPs assertions are just not credible. Only a relatively small amount of weight was placed on "Snakes In Suits" - 37 other cites were used including from luminaries such as Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries. Disregarding academic books, around 13 cites are specifically from psychology academic journals (plus some psychology related) - although some additonal cites are media articles about specific new academic articles rather than a cite to the academic article itself. I have no idea what relevance "schizotypal personality disorders" has which the OP mentions - it is not mentioned in the article. Incidentally, "Snakes In Suits" was co-authored by Robert D. Hare who is considered by most to be the world's leading guru on psychopathy. Also as per Andrew D..--Penbat (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: It is a notable topic. Sources online include:, , , , and . It appears to be a genuine phenomenon, and a notable one.  The delete rationale seems more like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT than founded in policy. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - yes, it's pop psychology crap, but it's sourceable. Bearian (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - as per above. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:53, 2 March 2017 (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.