Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Management: Tips From the Foxhole

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 speedily deleted by User:Bbb23 per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Management: Tips From the Foxhole

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

Pure personal opinion, not suitable for an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:SOAPBOX explain why this article is unsuitable for Wikipedia. I couldn't figure out which CSD criterion this meets, but it may qualify for speedy deletion. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an exact copy of a previous article that was speedy deleted per A7. I've tagged it. However I'm not entirely certain that A7 ought to apply as it deals with things rather than ideas. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the essay has some interesting advice it isn't encyclopedic, the editor who added it clearly has a head for management and could likely do a lot of good for wikipedia, but the essay should not be an article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - like Animalparty, I wanted to find a Speedy Deletion justification for this, but it did not seem to fit any category. But it is a personal essay of no particular note, which does not belong in Wikipedia.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a speedy deletion category for personal essays like this (though I was tempted to delete it under the 'uncontroversial housekeeping' criterion). It obviously isn't an encyclopaedia article, and so is out of scope. This might be accepted by Wikihow. Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nomination, and as per points raised by the other users in the preceding discussion. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course. It's an essay/OR. Andyjsmith (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per WP:NOTHOWTO. Esquivalience ^t 01:21, 2 April 2015 (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.