Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinvent Your Enterprise (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 12:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Reinvent Your Enterprise
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Large spam article on a book. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Article was created by people (with SPAs) from Brand Velocity as one of multiple spammy articles around their company. Recreation after the last afd closed merge has involved adding a lot of unsourced info and a lot of misleading references that do not support claims made. Some verify info not related to the book and appear to be there to pad out the reference list. Others are unrelated articles by Jack Bergstrand, author of the book, with a byline stating he wrote the book but saying nothing else about it. others are original research synthesis. below is a look at the sourcing at time of nomination. Given the deceptive nature of the sourcing, the blatant coi promotion and the lack of coverage about the book, this article should be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 dead link
 * 2 dead link, blog
 * 3 not in source
 * 4 not in source
 * 5 CIO for the Cola-Cola Co only, others not in source, nothing about book
 * 6 other CIO "What We're Reading," sections do not provide significant coverage, can't tell wether or not the book is mentioned.
 * 7 not in source, by Bergstrand
 * 8 not in source, by Bergstrand
 * 9 not in source, by Bergstrand
 * 10 not in source, by Bergstrand
 * 11 not in source, excert of book, link to copyright violation?
 * 12 not in source, no mention of the book, Bergstrand or Drucker
 * 13 not in source, no mention of the book or Drucker. contains quote from Bergstrand unrelated to the book.
 * 14 ref 9 repeated, not in source, by Bergstrand
 * 15 ref 10 repeated, not in source, by Bergstrand
 * 16 ref 11 repeated, not in source, by Bergstrand
 * 17 unrelated to the book, work prior to books publication
 * 18 unrelated to the book, work prior to books publication
 * 19 unrelated to the book, work prior to books publication
 * 20 unrelated to the book, work prior to books publication
 * 21 not in source, by Bergstrand
 * 22 not in source, image of another book with side commentry by Bergstrand
 * 23 not independent, not about book
 * 24 unrelated to the book, contains unrelated quote from a Brand Velocity colleague
 * 25 unrelated to the book, contains unrelated quote from Bergstrand
 * 26 ref 9 repeated, unrelated to the book, by Bergstrand
 * 27 unrelated to the book
 * 28 not in source, not significant coverage of the book, mostly excert of book
 * 29 not in source, not about book, product anouncement
 * 30 not in source, Bergstrand talking about various things, book is mentioned, not significant coverage
 * Delete. Props to the nominator for taking the time to check the sources. The deadlinks don't provide any evidence of significant coverage either: This dedicates a couple of sentences to the book and this article only gives the book a mention in reference to its author, who is discussed a bit more.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Link 3 did have a mention of the book, but it was just that- a mention. Link 11 appears to be a newsletter put out by Brand Velocity itself and is only an excerpt of the book, so obviously that's not something that can be used as a reliable source. I did find a few sources, but I'm not sure how reliable they really are., . There are a lot of reviews from non-notable blogs, but the majority of stuff I've seen when I was searching appear to be put out by the company itself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Comment - I have no preference for or against deletion, but:
 * 1 dead link  - available on archive.org
 * 3 not in source  - source generally supports citation
 * 5 CIO for the Cola-Cola Co only, others not in source, nothing about book - pertinent citation for author description
 * 6 other CIO "What We're Reading," sections do not provide significant coverage, can't tell wether or not the book is mentioned. - no other editions of the "What We're Reading" column are cited
 * 11 not in source, excert of book, link to copyright violation?  - source generally supports citation; no apparent indication of copyright issues
 * 17 unrelated to the book, work prior to books publication - prior work is intrinsically related to subsequent derivatives; relevant to article if cited differently
 * 18 unrelated to the book, work prior to books publication - see 17
 * 19 unrelated to the book, work prior to books publication - see 17
 * 20 unrelated to the book, work prior to books publication - see 17
 * 23 not independent, not about book  - there's definitely some conflation going on, but the article and video interview both address the book directly: "Bergstrand writes in his newly published book..." / "In your book, you write..."
 * 25 unrelated to the book, contains unrelated quote from Bergstrand - see 23
 * 30 not in source, Bergstrand talking about various things, book is mentioned, not significant coverage - source generally supports citation
 * I'm semi-sure there's at least one more inaccuracy in the list (ironically, the one that I first sampled at random) but I can't seem to figure out which it was. —  C M B J   12:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My biggest issue with most of the links was that the vast majority of them were written by Bergstrand or put out by the company he works for, which doesn't make them very reliable sources since it's in Bergstrand and his company's best interest to highlight his book and portray it in the best light possible. They're all primary sources for the most part.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * I'm with you (and duff) on that point, but it's still important to evaluate the veracity of each claim individually. —  C M B J   23:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding your staements of inaccuracy:
 * 3 page states "Reinvent Your Enterprise builds upon the “knowledge work” insights from Peter F. Drucker, among others, to help improve business results better and faster". source makes no mention of Drucker, source does not support the claim made, ie not in source
 * 5 pertinent citation for author description but only supports part of the claims made and does not count to the notability of this book.
 * 6 no other editions of the "What We're Reading" column are cited but other editions are available on CIO's website and these do not provide significant coverage of any of the books they mention. It is a reasonable assumption that the one cited is similar.
 * 11 Whether it supports the claim or not is open to interpretation. questions of copyvio are based on the fact this is part of a publication not by Brand Velocity but is hosted on Brand Velocity's website with no indication of permission.
 * 17-20 citing prior work in this fashion is WP:OR WP:SYNTH. saying it is unrelated to the book is relevent to the amount of coverage which counts to the notability of this book.
 * 23 does not amount to significant coverage of the book. does not count to the notability of this book.
 * 25 does not even mention the book. citing it in this fashion is WP:OR WP:SYNTH and does not count to the notability of this book.
 * 30 page states "While other tools like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator help individuals identify their personality type, the Strategic Profiling tool was developed to help the individual, project team, and company improve knowledge work productivity". source does not mention the Strategic Profiling tool so does not support the claim made, ie not in source.
 * If you remember the other percieved problem please let me know and I will address that too. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Individually:
 * 3) The description 'generally' was selected with care. A discrepancy does exist, but it's nothing outlandish or outside the scope of general cleanup.
 * 5) Nothing was expressed to suggest that this conferred notability.
 * 11) Regardless, there's no apparent issues with the publication itself and it can be cited with or without a link.
 * 17-20) A wide variety of claims can be cited to a prior work without crossing over into WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. For instance, Bergstrand may unambiguously quote Drucker and draw upon a common idea, in which case it could be useful to the reader for us to also cite the original material. Other possibilities could be more general in nature, such as substantiating a shared reference or obscure definition. These examples are not exhaustive and are all hypothetical, of course, because the article currently does not go into this level of detail.
 * 23) This source does not solely confer notability, but it is related.
 * 25) This appears to have been a mistake on my part, because I distinctly noted 23 and 25 as being the same link. Sorry.
 * 30) The source actually does describe the tool, but a more thorough reading suggests that (like several of the other citations) it's conflated with deployment by the consultancy firm.
 * I recall that the other one was something about a second page, but aside that detail it's likely to remain a mystery at this point. —  C M B J   23:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. A business book about a vague "knowledge management" theory, where the task set before an author is to come up with a new, catchy buzzword for the same old platitudes.  Whatever else this is, it's promotional but meaningless: Following five years of dedicated research, the book integrates insights and examples from more than 200 business executives and scholars to provide a systematic approach to improve sustainable corporate performance in today’s globally competitive environment. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Albeit relatively new, knowledge management is actually an established scientific discipline, complete with namesake journals and academic courses. The article's content is definitely promotional in some areas, but I honestly don't see how that particular quote is tantamount to patent nonsense. —  C M B J   00:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge into Jack Bergstrand if that article survives AfD, or otherwise delete. While I contest some specific points being made here, it's agreeable that there's simply not enough pure coverage to warrant an independent article at this time. I don't doubt the possibility that this could change in the foreseeable future, but for now, it is what it is. —  C M B J   00:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as per above. Autarch (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2011 (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.