Talk:Three levels of leadership model

This appears to be a heavily biased page that does nothing but promote James Scouller and his books.

I agree. This model hasn't been validated or tested at all, it's just from a book. 72.218.133.127 (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for removing proposed 7-day deletion notice created on 1 May 2015:

The person who proposed that this Wikipedia article be deleted gave the following reason: “Unsupported research, new theory created here that has not been tested nor does it come from a reputable source.” I find the proposed deletion surprising and inappropriate for the reasons below, which is why I have removed the deletion tag.

1. This article has been on Wikipedia for nearly three years. Its view statistics show that it had over 17,000 visits over the last 90 days, suggesting that thousands of people find the material in the article relevant, interesting, helpful or valid. Deleting it was bound to be controversial, but this form of deletion isn’t meant to be controversial.
2. The reason given for deletion does not, as far as I can see, meet any of the 14 criteria shown as “Reasons for Deletion” under the Wikipedia Deletion Policy.
3. The deletion proposer refers to “new theory created here”. Now this might suggest by implication that the article represents original research, which would qualify it for deletion under Wikipedia rules. However, while the Three Levels of Leadership model is indeed a relatively new idea as it only emerged four years ago, the article cannot be classed as “original research” because the model came out in a book released by a UK publisher in 2011. Moreover, Scouller’s book and its content has been referenced, quoted and cited in many sites on the Internet. This is an article with material that can be (and has been in the article) attributed to more than one reliable source and was not “created here” as the deletion proposer suggests.
4. The deletion proposer has remarked that this is “unsupported research, new theory … that has not been tested.” Is this true? Perhaps, more important, is this a valid reason to delete the article? Judging by the book’s success, it would seem there are readers who feel Scouller’s ideas are supported both by sound reasoning and his experience as a former CEO and now a coach to business executives. More to the point, since when has a notable new idea, theory or model that’s been published elsewhere in a book, journal or magazine been excluded from Wikipedia simply because it is fairly new or someone disagrees with it or claims it is “unsupported”? Consider, for example, Malcolm Gladwell’s book, The Tipping Point. It was new 15 years ago and there are those who still dispute some of his thinking, yet many feel his book was a useful addition to the discourse on how unnoticed trends can tip suddenly into mass adoption – it certainly deserves its coverage on Wikipedia.
5. The deletion proposer also writes in the reason for deletion: “nor does it come from a reputable source.” This sounds like bias. What is a reputable source? Who decides what is and isn’t reputable? Is he or she suggesting that Scouller is disreputable? Surely the judgement of what is “reputable” is in the eyes of the beholder. The point is that Scouller’s ideas have been published in a book that’s widely available and they offer an alternative view on effective leadership and how to develop leaders. Indeed, his writings highlight flaws in prior leadership models and suggest ways of overcoming them. I don’t understand how that makes him, his book or his publisher non-reputable. Would Malcolm Gladwell’s “Tipping Point” ideas have been described as “not coming from a reputable source” when they came out in 2000 because he wasn’t so well-known at the time and because they hadn’t appeared in, say, a peer-reviewed journal? Quite possibly, given the deletion proposer’s stance, but would it be justified? Would anyone seriously claim Gladwell was a “non-reputable” source now?

Having just reviewed the article and previously read Scouller’s book, it seems a fair and accurate (if rather dry) summary of some of his thinking, so I am not proposing any changes. Adamrogersuk (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]