Talk:The No Asshole Rule

Article title

Twice now, this article has been moved to the full title, The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't This is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books), which notes that "Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name. The only exception to that is short titles, for disambiguation purposes...." and adds "Except for the extremely long ones, best to provide redirects from the title including the subtitle." Since a move of this to a subtitle is inconsistent with these guidelines, it may be best to obtain consensus on overriding guideline prior to moving this article again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree it should stay at the short title. The "The" is sufficient to make clear at a glance that this is a title. --dab (𒁳) 17:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The rule itself

"A rule is suggested to screen out the toxic staff – the no asshole rule." This sentence contains no information. If an insider would please explain in one or two more sentences what the rule says, this article would be of some use. Thank you. 109.250.99.15 (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Marco Pagliero - Berlin

Proposing Deletion of this Article

Nominating this "article" for deletion. This is not Amazon.com. How is this book notable? This just seems to be Bob Sutton PR. I fail to see how this belongs on Wikipedia. This book is not a classic. It is not even important on the Amazon book list. This is just one of millions of mediocre business books, and in fact, some people think that the proposition of a "No Asshole Rule" is simply lame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.163.82 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's as may be, but the book does seem to have multiple references in notable reliable sources - and that would mean that it meets our criteria for notability in books. I can complete the AFD nomination for you if you like, but I don't believe that such a nomination would be successful with that rationale. I did note your concerns, however, and tagged the article for notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, are we here to beg for Wikipedia articling every bit of trivial hash on the planet? There needs to be some healthy rationalization here. This book is simply not worthy of a lone Wikipedia entry. There are literally thousands of books that are better than this book and none have Wikipedia entries. The only reason this Wikipedia entry exists is because the people behind its publication are aggressive publicists. Please. Let them do their advertising elsewhere. Wikipedia has better things to do than be the servile daughter to these publicity hounds.

The fact that more worthy books do not have articles is not a valid reason to delete this one. Our rule says that books that have been covered in reliable sources get articles - this one has been covered in reliable sources. If you have something that shows the self-promotion, or if you can show that the sources we have are flawed due to some sort of interference from the publisher, self promotion, or what have you, then you might have a case for deletion. Or, alternatively, you could just describe exactly what about the article is self-promotional, propose removing that, and leave the remainder. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• The article is not promotional. If the sources praise the book (and they seem to) then this is what we should accurately report. Warden (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Meh, these people who are yelling about deleting the entry are mostly offended people after reading the said book - for they are people who are in the category of "assholes". Come on. There is no promotional content - no praise, only brief synopsis. If there are more "worthy books" than this, fine - add them into Wikipedia. Be constructive, not destructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.23.139.153 (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Barclays on Wall Street?

How can Barclays Capital possibly be excluded from the bullydom of Wall Street, as having favorable hiring practices to remedy the workplace problem. Having spent years working on Wall Street, I can assure you that, while open hostility may not be an acceptable behavior, Wall Street money makers, as distinguished from its more passive population of secretaries and administrators, relies on aggressive, bullying behavior to earn a living. Those who are timid or meek would not even be hired, and would certainly not survive. Those who are not aggressive will not get promotions, even as administrators or secretaries. And Bloomberg, the news source of the article (access to the article is fire-walled off-limits by the way to the reading public), is a company that prides itself on its bullying. It is ironic but proactive on their part, that a leading bully would want to control the definition of, and promotion of the topic. It is also indicative of defining a bully, that the 12 characteristics of "bullying" would normally be considered extreme, and flagrant violations of human interpersonal communication. So is there any validity whatsoever in this article? Intimidation is a major practice of Wall Street firms (which are actually peopled by humans), and Barclays, which is cited as a prototype of a new direction, is no exception to that... Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Article reads like PR

While I won't dispute the notability of the book--the tone and formatting of the article reads like a (promotional) book review more than an encyclopedia article. Some of the prose looks lifted from elsewhere (though I'm not able to demonstrate a clear copyvio), and far too much of a detailed synopsis of the book's content is given. 192.65.41.126 (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)