Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Social Contract with Business

The Social Contract with Business

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

Looks like a rather disguised book review/promo, written by the author himself. Off course, I might be wrong but Bookcover CSB.jpg looks very suspicious. The Banner talk 22:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and modify with Talk page discussion, probably moving to a new title). Hmm, difficult situation. Let's Assume Good Faith here: the author is a new contributor to wikipedia, and went through an Articles For Creation process, and this article got approved (by AFC editor User:Timtrent after earlier consideration by AFC editor User:Joe Decker). From this comment at an AFC reviewer's talk page, I see that the article author is the author of the book of that title. In the AFC process, the article was improved, to be less about the book itself. I don't think this is meant as bald promotion for sake of getting profits for the book author. I believe the book author is an expert, has written a dissertation and has published a book, and they are trying to contribute on this topic of their expertise. The book author is not the first or only one to write about social contracts or about business's responsibilities, IMO, though they assert originality in their comment linked above. They may be a leader in integrating/synthesizing a specific theory, i am not sure, but the book itself is probably a useable, citable source on this topic area. So, I think the article title should be changed (to no longer be the exact title of the book) and the article should be modified to make it a more general treatment, and more clearly not just the same as the book's topic. And, I hope there may be some external review of the book that can be used. But, I hope we can use the interest and expertise of this contributor, rather than deleting all of their work! The article already does link to social contract general article, which is not so much about business's social contract. An article about the business social contract idea does seem useful, and it is great that this author is willing to contribute a graphic and so on. There are related topics--like Triple bottom line and Corporate social responsibility and other topics indexed at template {{Social accountability}} that could/should be linked, and/or this topic should be integrated with them.

I think it is best to Keep this for now and let's try to work to integrate it better. Watch Talk page of this article and author's Talk page. --do ncr am 15:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Doncram, who makes a persuasive point. I accepted the draft on the simple basis that it had rough edges, but met our needs of having sufficient verifiable notability to be a main namespace article. WP:AFC does not require perfection. IT simply requires that the draft is good enough and likely to survive a deletion discussion. This nomination puts that to the test. I stand by my assessment when I accepted the article. It has faults, but they are for cleaning up, not for deletion. Fiddle Faddle 15:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]