Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leadership styles

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was very close, so some weighing of arguments here is needed. As far as vote count is concerned, I see seven votes to delete, and three or four votes to keep, depending on whether the anon should be counted or not (I am usually willing to count anon votes if I don't suspect sockpuppetry, and in this case I don't suspect it). In addition we have a comment leaning towards keep but declaring that it is not voting.

The argument for deletion has been that the text is original research, in violation of WP:NOR. A rebuttal to this has been made by pointing to a JROTC link. However, it has also been pointed out, by Barno, that this is only one of several such typologies which exist and that there is nothing special about the typology presented in this article which distinguishes it from the others.

In sum I cannot see a consensus that an article on the subject leadership styles is invalid and should never have an article, but even some of the "keep" voters here have expressed concern with this particular article. Because of that I will close this debate with a delete decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leadership styles

Looks like original research: the four 'archetypes' don't yield any (non-wiki) Google results. No sources. The lists of alternative names are more commonly used, but those are merely mentioned. JoanneB 15:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This article has valid information, and has a point. They do yield resources, though only when the terms "Director, Thinker, Relater, Socializer" and "Ruler, Analyst, Relater, Entertainer" are given as search parameters. If this article survives this AfD, which I hope it does, a cleaning will be much appreciated --SoothingR 16:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and de-orphan. Though, to be honest, I'd not be able to distinguish this particular 4-point leadership styles typology from any of the many 4-point personality typologies on the market... The Land 17:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, one of hundreds of non-notable original research typologies from an unending stream of seminar-sellers. I agree with The Land's last sentence. Not recognized as a leading (excuse me) paradigm in its field. Barno 18:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Barno Pilatus 18:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Barno. Couldn't put it better.Gator1 19:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I dunno. When I google on "builder relater planner adventurer" I get quite a few JROTC-related hits. http://www-rotc.monroe.army.mil/jrotc/documents/Curriculum/Unit_3/u3c1l2.pdf helpfully identifies colors associated with teach style, and gives the very useful tip "Think when it is time to think (Planner green), decide when it time to decide (Builder brown), feel when it is time to feel (Relater blue), and act when it is time to act (Adventurer red)." Sarasota Military Academy [1] concurs and adds animal totems. To the question "What are the four Winning Colors and what strengths in terms of behavior, communications and attributes are associated with each?" it answers: "Green is Fox/Planner and is a creative thinker. Red is Tiger/Adventurer and is action oriented. Brown is Bull & Bear/Builder and is leadership oriented. Blue is Dolphin/Relater and is a team builder." I'm inclined to think this stuff must be recognized JROTC lore, in which case it should be cleaned up and kept. Not ready to vote yet. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Barno. Dottore So 19:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Barno Sliggy 19:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep needs revisions, though --grubbmeister 07:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Barno. -- Kjkolb 08:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Keep the category, subdirectory the current contents. What's here is simply one of many theories on leadership. Where are all the others? (unsigned post by 24.2.75.241 19:42, October 7, 2005) -- Sliggy 23:03, 7 October 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.