Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dilbert principle

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dilbert principle

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

Non-notable cartoon version of the peter principle. It barely deserves a notation in the popular culture section of the peter principle.--RaptorHunter (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and not merge, as it is not the same thing as the Peter principle, so the brief mention in Peter principle is enough. Kansan (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now neutral as more sources have come up, although I'm still not quite sure of the overall notability. Kansan (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single delete? Why won't this article die already?--RaptorHunter (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's notable, that's why. This could be speedy-closed as no delete !votes other than the nominator. --MelanieN (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- There's some sources out there-. 1, 2 for example. A possibility for a merge to the article on the book is reasonable, not decided here under the threat of deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's a book by the title. The article should be refocused around the book. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to The Dilbert Principal and focus on the book. The book is notable and the current content should become the section that discusses the book's thesis. GabrielF (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the principalle itself is notable, source-able, and ironically, true. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regarding notability, it isn't just from the cartoons themselves. Scott Adams wrote an entire book on the subject, and the book has been required reading in some business schools. So it's not a good deletion candidate. Also, the Dilbert Principle isn't a retelling of the Peter Principle. The Peter Principle describes a darwinian process that is essentially a dark pattern that was never consciously intended by any of the people involved, whereas the Dilbert Principle is that fools are purposely sequestered. Lastly, BTW, the correct spelling is the one ending in -le, not -al. — ¾-10 20:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject, as both the idea that a company promotes incompetent employees to middle management, where they do the least harm, and the book about the "principle." References in the article show that this is taught in college courses. Edison (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be lots of sources which testify to the topic's notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has found its way into the vernacular Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above; subject is notable as a common term. Refocusing on the book might work as well, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this well-cited article is about a corollary of the Peter Principle, but is not the same thing. See also Roosevelt Corollary. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources, agree it would be better as The Dilbert Principle with more focus on the book.. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes article requires expansion, but is a notable topic. Rjwilmsi 18:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Certainly more important than nominator suggests. It's not clear to me why the article needs deletion - Dilbert is influential in many areas of management analysis. I would expect more on The Dilbert Principle book here too. The suggestion to expand the entry to feature the book more prominently is appealing, but would need a correct spelling. Ringbark (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable principle (not principal). There should be more about the book, as Ringbark noted. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 23 April 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.