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
[edit]Why 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
[edit]Martin 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 Also the article is out of date.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
[edit]For 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
[edit]Some 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)