Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Psychology of Management


 * 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: No substantial arguments for deletion beyond nominator (Non Admin Closure) Hasteur (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Psychology of Management

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional or non-notable topic. The name of the book does not allow for a book to be included as an article on WP. Wikid as&#169; 20:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm unclear how this could be a promotional article 97 years after first publication? A Google Books search turns up plenty of books discussing Gilbreth and this work in particular. AllyD (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Notability is not inherited. Even if the author is notable the book by the same may not be. See GNG afor inclusion criteria. I accept your point that promotion is the wrong word. Wikid as&#169; 20:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To be explicit about the Google Books links I provided. Take one of them, "A to Z of women in science and math" by Lisa Yount, p121: "Martha Trescott says that this book 'open(ed) whole new areas to scientific management ... (It) formed a basis for much modern management theory'". Or Encyclopaedia of New Jersey, p315: "Her dissertation, entitled 'The Psychology of Management,' became a classic in its field." AllyD (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If notable, this ought to be an article, and if not, it ought to be a redirect to Lillian Moller Gilbreth where it's discussed. I can see the argument for non-notability, but what I don't see is how "non-notable" leads to a delete outcome in this case.— S Marshall  T/C 21:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment AfD step 1 hasn't been completed so no reader of the page in question would be aware of this discussion. Nor has the original article creator been notified (though s/he does not appear to have been active since 2006). AllyD (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am completing this process now and am not opposed to redirect as a result of AfD, even if the name of the book is too generic for that and the book is not that famous. Wikid as&#169; 07:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still unclear on the basis for this nomination, but I'm wondering - is it the article name that is causing the nominator a problem? Would Wikidas be more comfortable if the article was renamed, for example, to "The Psychology of Management (book)" so that someone seeking the generic field would not come straight to that page? (If that's the issue and a suitable way to address it, then this can be done through a simple rename after discussion on the article talk page, with the need for AfD.) AllyD (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The basis of this nomination is not clear to me either, except that it should demonstrate notability from 3rd party sources. Clearly, the sources are available on the Internet, which gives a compelling reason not to delete the article. Articles are normally deleted if there is no obvious sources to demonstrate notability, but I don't think that is the case here. So there is no obvious reason to completely delete it right now. Renaming it to "The Psychology of Management (book)" wouldn't be such a bad idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.241.92 (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply- Notability is established by the policy of Wikipedia, there is no claim for notability of this book and even if it was claimed it is not substantiated by reliable sources. There is no reason for this article to exist, and notability is not inherited. Wikid as&#169; 06:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But nobody is claiming inherited notability. Repeating the 3rd party quotes above about the book: 'open(ed) whole new areas to scientific management", "formed a basis for much modern management theory'", "a classic in its field". AllyD (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia policy does not say that there should be a source that says: "this subject is notable" so wikidas' argument is invalid. Notability is established through multiple means. The fact that the book is so widely quoted at least gives reason that the book is notable. I do think the article needs more information for it to be a worthwhile wikipedia article. But as it stands, it could at least be called a "stub".


 * Keep The article as it stands doesn't explain how it is notable. From scholarly searches, it is certainly clear that it is a widely references and notable book, but the article should be longer than it currently is and mention some of the sources that discuss this book.
 * Comment I don't think there is any reason to delete it though. I would say keep it, and mention that the article is a stub.
 * Comment A few possible sources that could be integrated into the article:
 * "The Psychology of Management is a major early work in its field"
 * "The Psychology of Management was a groundbreaking work on the health of industrial workers which had an enormous impact on the development of business practices in the twentieth century."
 * "The Psychology of Management," became a classic in its field."
 * "The Psychology of Management was the touchstone for a new field of study."
 * "The psychology of Management... became a classic"
 * "... today it is recognized as authoritative"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.241.92 (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Psychology of Management is the foundation on which modern industrial management theory and practice is built." 86.45.241.92 (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep due to the incoherent deletion rationale presented, which doesn't allow for a sensible response to be made. What on earth is "the name of the book does not allow for a book to be included as an article on WP" supposed to mean? Are there certain book titles that in themselves make it impossible that the books with them are suitable topics for an encyclopedia? Of course not. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 9 April 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.