Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Open Work Ethic


 * 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. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG, also WP:OR concerns j⚛e deckertalk 03:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The Open Work Ethic

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Appears to be a non-notable neologism, at least in the definition that is presented here. I found some very brief mentions of the concept in relation to the Native American origin that is claimed to be the origin of this concept, but that's it. However, this article is not even about the Native American tradition, but is instead more or less a How-To Guide for making a happier work place. No sources are present in the article, and upon searching, the only things I found were the mentioned hits that were not only not about the concept as presented in this article, but were extremely minor mentions of the term. PROD was declined with no explanation. Rorshacma (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This doesn't merit its own wikipedia article without WP:RS sources. --Artene50 (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Essay, original research, unsourced. POV from the very first sentence ("The Open Work Ethic (TOWE) is a practice that has been misrepresented by a few."), also per use of first-person in the text. Nothing here to salvage. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 4 July 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.