Talk:Martin Lukes
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 January 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Untitled
editWhy is there an article on the main character from the book, but no article on the book? --Xyzzyplugh 05:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Probably because the character appears regularly in a weekly column in the financial times and the book is a spin-off from this. The FT column is written as a series of email correspondence and is presented as fact. Martin Lukes has become a sort of proxy for the shameless self-enrichment and hyperbolae of modern management. I think the entry is a valid one for inclusion but needs tidying up. I'll try to get the time to write a better one. NBeddoe (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't Delete
editMartin Lukes has become a byword for a certain sort of management creep and Wikipaedia should have an entry just for him even if he is linked to other entries. Many people still don't realise it is a spoof, which is the scariest thing of all.MaxsMum (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree it should not be deleted. Martin Lukes is the hero of the FT column and has his role in the pantheon along with Pointy Haired Boss and David Brent/Michael Scott. However the article is certainly poor and it would be great if somebody could rewrite it especially putting the column first and emphasising the book as a spin off. Also the article is out of date. Martin became CEO of a-b-global but was then arrested for insider trading. Since then there has been no column (making Thursday's FT much more dull recently.) --85.210.152.195 (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
See Also, References not displaying
editFor some reason the bottom two headings aren't displaying, even though the code for them is there. Any thoughts how to fix this? ElectricRay (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Irritating Squelch Bot
editSome annoying bot reverted my changes because of a link to a blog (which I think adds to the article.) I wouldn't mind if it was a human and a human woudn't have reverted all the other changes too. The link is indeed to blogspot and superficially breaks Wikipedia guidelines, but a more important guideline would seem to be to make statements verifiable.--81.178.97.181 (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)