Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribal Leadership


 * 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 per unanimity of respondents (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Tribal Leadership

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

This article is no more than just an advertisement for a recent (2008!) non-notable book (by a on-notable author). We shouldn't allow this kind of articles on Wikipedia. Damiens .rf 22:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: To become less of an advertisement and more like a real article, the article should focus on why is the book important (is it influential? polemical? expected?) and less in describing the book's contents. The current book analysis in the article is original research, since it's based on the book itself, and not on secondary sources. But still we have to determine which of the 5 criterion on Notability (books) apply to this book ( "1" is borderline). --Damiens .rf 20:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. What a nice PR write-up. Renee (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The two sources now in the article are from pretty weak newspapers (small city papers, Savannah, Lexington). But, I just found several more from mainstream presses with good vetting and fact-checking procedures. Renee (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are several academic articles and talks on the study references in the book, see this. Very noteworthy study and book.Renee (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added book reviews that appeared in two U.S. newspapers. The book is published by HarperCollins, a well-known book publishing company. --Eastmain (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per sources found, and note that for a new article, tagging with unref would be preferable to give it a chance for improvement rather than taking it straight to AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets WP:BK 1. Could use some cleanup for tone, but otherwise is a good stub. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:15, 11 April 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.