Talk:Entrepreneurial mindset

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

"The philosophical themes - existentialism, axiology, pragmatism, ethics - are thereby understood to be strange attractors influencing the construction of the entity’s persona as well as the concrete practices of the entity (Figure 1)." While I have no particular objection to one person writing an article, I think this sentence demonstrates why this circumstance is occasionally unhelpful. This sentence, while perhaps appropriate to a PhD thesis, is quite bizarre in the context of an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.144.77 (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

somebody (IP user) added an alternative view on what an entrpereneurial mindset is - the contribution was embeded in insults and accusations - i added the substantial part to the bottom of the article - max

older than July 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.143.31 (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to have been substantially contributed to by one editor, the user with an identical name to the references. I object that material is being placed in this article that is original thought from a single user. The intention of the wikipedia project is not self-promotion of orignal thought. For example, in reviewing literature, the intention is to select well-known thinkers who would support one idea of an entrepreneurial mindset. In this sense, this is academic scholarship that needs to be reviewed by that field. At wikipedia articles are drawn from a wide range of sources to present a synthesis of views. I propose deleting most of the material and leave the article as a few sentences that convey a simple understanding of this topic. I will edit this three days from now. Thanks. —F^red ¹1⁴ 22:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi fred114 - you are right that the article draws on my phd research - several wikipedians reviewed and edited the work though - there are many many articles that start of with the work of one user and i see it as a collaborative evolution to have the article develop into a good neutral point of view piece - looking forward to your contribution - max

I agree with the first posting, this page is an unveiled attempt at self promotion of, at best, a questionable concept. It has no support in the existing academic literature on mindset or entrepreneurial mindset. Until it has successfully navigated the academic peer review process and achieved publication in a reasonably good business or entrepreneurship journal it should be removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.19.40 (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And It is a very easy and intellectual pass time to criticise a work and not contribute anything to it. I know many leeches who waste a lot of time doing this and I congratulate you on your membership of this cabal, which perhaps explains how the subject matter in question is lost on the left brainers somewhat paradoxically. Why not try to contribute something positive to this thread. How ironic I hear you scream that I have not contributed something positive myself, but I whisper back, "I have" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.113.157 (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

took out the original research disclaimer as i added a reference to my phd so it should be clear to visitors that this is one theory based on peer reviewed phd research - as said i keep inviting people to review and contribute to the page and am happy to see it evolve - max —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxSenges (talk • contribs) 22:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fine and useful and should stay. It will be easier for other editors to prune, edit and diversify opinions from this existing article than from a blank article. There is a substantial research literature on the psychology and sociology of the entrepreneur and this could perhaps be given more discussion in the article. 128.205.75.214 (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]