Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marv Weisbord

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 of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marv Weisbord

Wikipedia is not for original research or personal essays; this is nothing but! Harro5 03:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Somewhat insignificant. The writing borders on incoherent. Unsalvageable. Hu 03:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 04:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Patent nosense, no context. Impossible for anyone unfamiliar with subject (whatever it is) to understand. --Worthawholebean 04:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and send to Cleanup. Wow, this is really really far from patent nonsense. A quick Google shows that Marv Wiesberg has published several books and appears to referenced in the field. Granted, the article is not about Marv Wiesberg. However, a shorter clearer version of the Wiesberg Model might reasonably be included in a bio of Wiesberg. Also, IMO this is clearly not original research, it is a synopsis of an existing methodology that appears to have at least some notability in the Org Dev field. It reads a little like an essay because it's a bad article, but it's not. It being NOT original research, I challenge to prove lack of notability for Wiesberg (which he may not be, I don't know.) Otherwise, keep and cleanup. Herostratus 07:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This article scarcel mentions Marv Weisbord who has written a couple of books on management theory see [1]. At the bottom of the article, it states: Written by Tanim Chowdhury, California State University, Northridge. I haven't been able to track this down so the chances are that it is more likely that Tanim Chowdbury is the author. I will vote Delete for this article and request that Marv Weisbord be added to the list of requested articles. I would vote Keep for a decent stub or better of Weisbord. Capitalistroadster 08:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. Peyna 14:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice. It's a painful personal essay. Ifnord 14:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Original research or class study notes. It's an entry on the Weisbord model by a student, so it's most likely that we're being used as a jumbo legal pad by college students (several times I've seen something like this). Geogre 20:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Replace this essay with a bio and a link to the essay-- --(U | T | C) 08:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• An article about that person might be valid if it can demonstrate notability. However, what's there now is an essay that's only tangentially related. Delete. —preceding unsigned comment by Dtobias (talk • contribs) 06:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Dtobias. Stifle 11:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or rename Weisbord model, which is what this article is all about. I have no question that Marvin Weisbord deserves an article but there is nothing about him in this article expect the title. If someone wants to write an article on him, let them get the credit for creating the article, not the person who mislabeled this article on the Weisbord model. -- DS1953 00:39, 7 December 2005 (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.