Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PROUD Principle

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. postdlf (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PROUD Principle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The topic is one of those cheesy customer-service motivational acronyms you might see in the break room at a Walmart. The article is referenced, but the sources are either irrelevant (about customer service in general, or other acronyms for the same thing), or primary. In particular, the "PROUD principle" publication was self-published in 2014 by one J. Smart. Article was created by User:123jms. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as pointed out by Opabinia there is evidence that the self-published author of PROUD is also the article's creator (implying self-promotion of a non-notable concept). Many handy references but they are for other business acronyms. —Noah 22:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-comment: weaving in Maya Angelou was a nice touch for adding a scent of importance. —Noah 22:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT for promoting a non-notable book you wrote yourself. In a quick Google search just now, the ONLY reference I found to this principle was the Wikipedia article. As Noah pointed out, the author did a nice job of name-dropping in the article (Maya Angelou was only one of several), but it does not add to the concept's notability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 14 February 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.