Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negotiation skills

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 redirect to Negotiation. Consensus is that this is not needed as an article separate from negotiation. Anything useful and sourced can be merged from history, consensus permitting.  Sandstein  10:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Negotiation skills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded on the grounds that it reads like an essay. Deporodded on the grounds that it has a source, but it reads like a summary of said source and perhaps even a copyright violation thereof. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A Google Books search shows that the topic is indisputably notable, as dozens of books have been published on negotiation skills. The solution to the shortcomings of the current version of the article is to improve it through normal editing, rather than deleting an article about a notable topic. Nominator, please delete any copyright violations that you have identified. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, reluctantly. I am deeply suspicious of topics like this. The kind of writing they attract seems to me to usually be tautological moonshine, and the text we have now certainly has aspects of that: There are four basic elements in this alternative approach to negotiation. Very simply, they are:

1. People- Separate the people from the problem

2. Interests – Focus on interests, not positions.

3. Options- Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do.

4. Criteria- Insist that the result be based on some objective standard

I also see why this looks like a copyright violation. Authors are cited in the text but not referenced: Whetten and Cameron suggest an integrative approach that takes an “expanding the pie” perspective that uses problem-solving techniques to find win-win outcomes. (Grownups know there are no win-win outcomes, either. More moonshine.) But I am not finding copies of relatively unlikely phrases from this text online elsewhere; if it's a copyright violation, I haven't found it, and if it were a copyright violation I would speedily delete this in a heartbeat. It does read rather essayish-ly, appears to contain original research, and passages of uninformative tautology and bogus lists. I don't like the fact that the world considers a subject like this a real subject; "there's no there there." But it does; sources can easily be found on the topic, and the rest is cleanup, not deletion. Remove original research and meaningless, nonsensical, or tautological passages, and watch for spam. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Better idea. Selective merge with negotiation and redirect. There's a fair amount of moonshine in there already, that may need to be looked at. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge with negotiation and redirect (per above). Neutrality^talk 18:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The way it is written might be a little of essay type, but the content is original. There are four basic elements in this alternative approach to negotiation as explained by Fred Luthans in his books. And win-win situations do exist in real life, deals like mergers are done to build on profits with each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uma8829 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user has 8 edits. Neutrality^talk 15:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article simply needs some improvement. Let that happen. -- 07:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - not complete bollucks, but also not useful as a stand-alone article. Alternately, a merger into negotiation may be attempted. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't think this page contains anything necessary that Negotiation doesn't already have. With all due respect to Cullen328, we live in an age where self-help books (Writing skills, Money-making skills, Sex skills, etc.) are plentiful and popular. I do not believe that means that such topics are encyclopaedic. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Cullen328 Stuartyeates (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This seems to be an essay put onto Wikipedia. There are problems with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; even if the article is potentially notable, it would need a complete rewrite to solve all the problems. In any case, I do not believe it to be notable, as I said above. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:17, 15 October 2011 (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.