Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Five Dysfunctions of a Team


 * 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. Lara ❤  Love  01:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Five Dysfunctions of a Team

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

I kind of hate to do this since the page's author e-mailed me asking for help (apparently this is part of a class project), but I just don't see any notability per WP:BOOK. As with most books, I'm finding about eight billion sites to buy the book from, but no substantial third-party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I frankly would take a somewhat harder line on management fad or fad-wannabe books, and require clear indicia of notability from the beginning.  The promotional motive in many of these articles is fairly obvious; and most of the texts do little more than rehash platitudes with a freshly minted jargon.  This contains no references that back up its claims about circulation, assuming that they are enough; and for material of this nature, we don't really need to look for ourselves. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability: the only references are the web-site of "the table group - a patrick lencioni company", i.e. the author's. JohnCD (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Lots of references indicating notability. Just add a couple to the article and we're done.  What we need is something on the Five Dysfunctions of AFD :).  1.  Inability to find sources.  2.  Indulge prejudices.  3.  Failure to look past the current content. ... Colonel Warden (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BK and none of the references gleaned from Google seem to be non-trivial, most are catalog listings and press releases. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A cursory search indicates that this book is a best-seller; that it has significant influence; that it is covered in major news media; and that the author has sold millions. I have added some cites to demonstrate this. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Needs more -- so far there's one third-party link demonstrating notability. (Best-seller is an indicator of notability, but doesn't prove it.) Holding off on !voting pending further possible work. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP Book has been reviewed in nearly half a dozen periodicals tracked by academic databases, including the Harvard Business Review. I've included the list on the article page. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Firefly322. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Said further work has demonstrated notability. Those reviews could use wikifying and an encyclopedic summary, but that's a content issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: A quick look at Google Scholar shows a fair number of academic references to this particular title and it is the subject of some academic study per WP:BK. – Zedla (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2008 (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.