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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Six Sigma Pricing

[edit]

previously speedily deleted, editor has a conflict of interest and lists only references authored by him/her including their book. RadioFan (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise as I am new to Wikipedia: how do I provide other references if someone keeps deleting them? Am happy to work on the talk page but even that has been deleted. Talk about an infinite loop! I would be grateful for any help at this stage: what seemed like adding an encyclopediac entry from material in the public domain is now being portrayed as self-promotion with someone having fun deleting what I enter to respond to queries.Mohansodhi (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Mohansodhi[reply]

No notability whatsoever, should be deleted right away.Possible ban for the user.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 15:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotional and non-notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The materials are publicly available and I refer to three internal links on Wikipedia and two external links. The process of publication in Harvard Business Review is quite thorough in checking any "conflicts of interest". If I refer only to articles that I have co-authored, does it mean the information is not of benefit to others? The references are peer-reviwed by business practitioners and by other academics (I am an academic myself) in both cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohansodhi (talk • contribs) 15:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please dont misunderstand, no one is questioning the impartiality of Harvard Business Review. The COI questions are Wikipedia specific here. It is not appropriate to edit an article on a subject that you are closely associated with, especially one that you've written a book on. Its hard not to see this as promotional in nature. Harvard Business Review is a well respective publication but in this case it's still leaning towards being primary source. This could be resolved if there significant coverage could be located in some other 3rd party verifiable references. Can you provide some pointers to such references?--RadioFan (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the review on the American Society for Quality website by S. Shahbazi: http://www4.asq.org/blogs/financial-services-six-sigma/2007/10/book_review_six_sigma_pricing.html Another review is by a pricing blogger, Reuben Swartz http://blog.mimiran.com/2007/10/six-sigma-pricing-improving-pricing.html Mohansodhi (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Mohansodhi[reply]

Am including Özalp Özer and Robert Phillips (editors),. Oxford Handbook of Pricing Management, Oxford University Press, to appear later this year. Google Scholar lists five citations, a few of them dissertations -- should I list these? I am still unclear on "promotional" or "advertising" -- this is academic material available in the public domain. What do I as an academic gain from promoting this?

Comment: The publication in Harvard Business Review indicates that the peer-reviewers felt the idea might have some merit. However, since the only other sources that can be found for this concept are self-published websites and blogs, it appears that the idea has not yet caught on in the business world. This is not to say it WON'T catch on, but that it has not yet. Until it does, the concept is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I must note that I do NOT agree with Permethius that this user should be banned. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while I'm a bit troubled by the recreation of the article after speedy deletion and COI warnings of the author, I also agree that banning is a bit extreme at this point.--RadioFan (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted because it was the same material as on Knoll -- so I recreated it with new material, resulting in new objections from you.Mohansodhi (talk)@Mohansodhi

Delete If sufficient reliable independent resources exist to demonstrate notability and provide verification, let the author show them. Otherwise this is WP:NEO, WP:OR, WP:SPAM, WP:COI. Basically Wikipedia is not to be used for publicity. I agree banning is overly harsh now but if the article is reposted again without sufficient references it could be considered repeated vandalism. Drawn Some (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the references that I provided have been deleted by someone -- I don't know why. The version of the entry now does look promotional with the references deleted. I genuinely hope this is not someone's idea of having fun.Mohansodhi (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Mohansodhi[reply]

Delete, agree entirely with Drawn Some. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am providing a new source to appear in Oxford University Press (Özalp Özer and Robert Phillips (editors),. Oxford Handbook of Pricing Management, Oxford University Press, 2009).

Comment given your conflict of interest here with this subject, it would be best if you avoided editing this article. Please add any suggestions for improvements to the article's talk page instead.--RadioFan (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to do that and then the talk page was deleted. Also, all the additions I made to respond to the questions have also been deleted, leaving only one sentence that does seem like a promotion. I am too new to understand what is going on and don't know why someone would delete material that I am trying to provide to respond to your comments. Mohansodhi (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)MohanSodhi[reply]

Comment the talk page was likely deleted by an admin following up on the previous speedy deletion of the article. You can either readd you comments or request that the deleting admin restore the page, its up to you.--RadioFan (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, I can find no reference to said book either in Google Books or on Oxford University Press' own page (even in their "upcoming" category. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do see it on Google Scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohansodhi (talk • contribs)

Please provide a link, as I can't find this book on Google Scholar. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the following link for a few references to the book http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=Handook+Pricing+Ozalp Mohansodhi (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Mohansodhi[reply]

Delete - Drawn Some sums it up. This needs sources that do not simply point to the book. As well, any discussion of "banning" the user are out of scope of an AfD (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How can anyone refer to the concept without referring to the book or article? If a concept is new, the author will have to cite the original source, but you are suggesting this is not valid. I am quite surprised by this. Mohansodhi (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Mohansodhi There are at least five citations on Google Scholar, but are you suggesting that these would not allowed? Mohansodhi (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Mohansodhi[reply]

I think the problem you're running into here is that the concept is TOO new to have gotten any foothold yet. It may well be a perfectly viable theory of business operation, but it has not yet received the reliable third-party coverage to demonstrate that. Continuing to cite your own publications does not verify its notability -- a third party will need to report on the theory and its efficacy (or lack thereof) before it can be considered notable. Third party review does not mean a publication of YOUR article in another journal or book, it means an unrelated author looking at your theory and its practice in industry and writing about THAT. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak about the newness of the concept, but the core problem is that it appears the only source on the subject is this book (and I think another) by the editor. This amounts to original research and can't be included here. Mohansodhi, I understand your frustration here, but there needs to be more third-party, independent sources that write about the subject, not just point to the book. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 12:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "seminal" paper in HBR has been cited only 4 times since then, according to Scopus, (5 according to Google Scholar) . It might of course have had a greater influence outside the academic world, but even Google shows very few independent references of any sort. I see there's an article in Knol, and that seems a appropriate place for the topic. DGG (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Six Sigma. It has a minor amount of coverage (which I wish the article creator could have bothered looking up!!!), e.g. [1][2][3][4]. But it doesn't stand alone as a separate topic to Six Sigma. Fences and windows (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2009 (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.