Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leadership Performance

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership Performance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is an essay and any worthwhile material belongs in the Leadership article. Nick Dowling (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect. The article lists a whole bunch of possibly useful sources that could be used to improve leadership. The nom already said worthwhile info belonged there so there's no real reason to consider deletion. To the nom: Why not post at Wikipedia:Requested mergers instead? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Because it's not a likely search term and little, if any, material is usable elsewhere given that the article has been written as an essay. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and heavily clean-up or merge and redirect. Obviously, this is a badly flawed page - full of OR/synthesis and unsourced assertions. However, it is also a perfectly respectable and encyclopaedic topic (and if necessary a wholly plausible search term) and there is useful content buried in there and plenty of good sources. Either it needs a big pair of scissors to cut it back to content that can be fully inline sourced or, as Mgm suggests, added as a new section to Leadership. Which course of action is best is an editorial decision to be taken on the talk page, outwith this AfD. The page was rightly tagged for improvement. However, when articles have been so tagged then, in my view, reasonable time should be given for improvement before being submitted for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to a subpage of the talk page of leadership. There may be some material here that is useful for improving the head article. The text and all its references seem rather vague and evasive, and the text itself is essayish as noted. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is prose with lots of sources. The complaint that it is an essay seems to be mere stylistic criticism with no basis in policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Is it your position that we can use articles on both leadership and Leadership Performance, then?
  
  There is, of course, a fairly extensive literature on "leadership" that comes out of business schools or management fad paperbacks. Like school-teaching, it seems to be an art or mystery that resists academic study: the business of writing academic journal papers about it yields mostly tautology veiled behind abstraction. This sort of material doesn't really inform. Read the "conclusions" of this article and see if you can convince me that there's an actual subject being written about here.
  
  The breathless prose of the more popular works on the subject likewise contains little information. There's usually some kind of consultancy or seminar waiting in the wings, and you aren't going to get the mystery disclosed to you in the text itself. You have to pay for the seminar to learn that the author doesn't have a handle on the subject either.
  
  There might be more room in an encyclopedia for the first sort of text than the latter, but yes, I tend to view both of them with fairly serious misgiving. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - My view is that we could certainly do with both articles but after significant restructuring. The present leadership page is terrible. It is a mish-mash of topics with no structure that would enable someone to read through and emerge with an understanding of the subject. It would be better to have a shorter page describing what leadership is with sub-pages on particular aspects. As an example, Leadership among primates is stuck in the middle and that section itself deals with both animal behaviour and further reflections on human leadership. BTW before someone sofixit it this page needs to be tackled by someone with some expertise in the subject :-) TerriersFan (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.