Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malicious compliance

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) wumbolo ^^^ 09:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious compliance

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article relies primarily on a single source, and the only other source in the article defines the term very differently. Coverage online is mostly from unreliable sources. Non-notable buzzword. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well it’s clear the term is widely used and somewhat fuzzy in its meaning so there is the basis for an article. There are decent sources at the Financial Times, Security Today, Researchgate and a Masters thesis in progress so it’s looking pretty sound to me at the moment. Mccapra (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Guye: in what way do the two sources have a different definition? The CNN source says "Malicious compliance is when your boss tells you to do something and you do it even though you know it's not going to have the desired result." The DeHart-Davis book says "Malicious compliance leads one to adhere to the letter but not the spirit of a rule. Through malicious compliance, employees send an 'I'll show you' message..." They sound pretty much the same to me. SpinningSpark 09:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of discussion in reliable book sources. Besides the sources already in the article, there is,
- Change Management: New Words for Old Ideas devotes a whole chapter to it
- Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams has the best part of a page on the subject
- Best Practices in Leadership Development and Organization Change gives it a section with a couple of paragraphs
- Nuclear Safety: A Human Factors Perspective discusses a specific example over a couple of pages
- Air Management for the Fire Service discusses the specific firefighting example for more than a page.

SpinningSpark 09:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No compliance with WP:Before. Fundamental concept in running or participating an organization, office, family, etc. There are tons of good sources that explicate this and if you click on the links provided in an AFD you will easily see this. This will easily go beyond a mere definition. Article can and will be improved. The Wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment, i.e. deletion, has no place here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of news sources and elsewhere use this term, it a real thing, and there enough valid material to justify a Wikipedia article for it. Dream Focus 17:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I knew about this subject many years back because it was being done in some industrial facilities, causing bad things to happen. I'll just leave it at that... JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No compliance with WP:Before. There is enough material to justify an article.Lubbad85 (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request speedy close. The nominator appears not to be interested in defending their nomination. The community has better things to do than waste time on a drive-by nomination, especially one that is heading for WP:SNOW. SpinningSpark 15:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: Well the article would have to be written entirely from scratch if it is kept. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 08:39, 5 April 2019 (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.