Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leadership by Virtue

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership by Virtue

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

Novel published in 2013 with a suspiciously complete summary. Doesn't appear to have been the subject of any reviews. [1] Nobody appears to have read it on Goodreads either. The tone is also overly promotional, which suggests WP:COI. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I wasn't able to find sufficient sources to pass WP:NBOOK, but I'd like to see if anyone more familiar with Slovenian can find more? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is one of the articles connected to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elvin Aghayev and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khangrah, although the subject matter appears unrelated and no socks have appeared here yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the cited reviews are blogs or worse, no coverage in reliable sources. This is quite likely the work of a paid editor or editors trying to scrape the lower range of notability criteria (and failing badly, IMO). — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Yerpo: this is written with the surface appearance of notability (having many sources on a varied selection of sites) but none of the sources looks reliable. And the scattershot nature of the topics related by the SPI makes me suspicious of paid editing. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2015 (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.