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 keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Things Done

[edit]

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

Fundamentally promotional, to the extent I cannot figure out how to rewrite it. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this isn't unambiguously promotional. As a first cut, I suggest axing out everything in the "Themes" section except for the summary part. What remains of the article seems decent enough. No question about notability; it would be kept on that basis in any case. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book and methodology both meet WP:GNG, but the article could use some bold edits. Dgpop (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Getting Things Done is very well-known and prominent within time management circles which is reflected by the fact that it is covered by reliable and prominent sources such as Time magazine and Wired Magazine. Therefore, it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. The article is not promotional, but it is overly descriptive in a few paragraphs which is most likely due to writer of the articles love of the topic. If Wikipedia deleted articles which were overly descriptive due to a writers affection for the topic, a quarter of Wikipedia might be deleted. Knox490 (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a quarter of WP should be deleted. We have let far too much promotion and advertising get into what is supposed to be an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 14:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there. But in the case of this article, it's a notable topic, and the article isn't written in an overtly promotional way. Remove the unnecessary details as I suggest above, and it's fixed. This isn't a case of WP:Blow it up and start over. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2017 (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.