Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/70/20/10 Model


 * 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 (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

70/20/10 Model
AfDs for this article:  not documented anywhere, not significant, not notable. LightSpeed3 (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * Keep It's got a lot of documentation actually, take a look at the g-hits. JeremyMcCracken
 * Delete Since when were google hits the standard for notability? if i mention the 70/20/10 in my 6000 blogs it counts as "hits." Also I like how the google-biased defense comes with google being the only documented company in the article. no bias here huh LightSpeed3 (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean the number of hits; read the articles. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets notability with . Reference added to article. ChessCreator (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. archanamiya  ·  talk  20:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the two links go to the same page, which is about their business rules of which this is only one. But a Google search turns up too many other references to it to ignore (e.g. ). The phrase is in sufficiently widespread use to make this a Keep. JJL (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Perhaps this could be merged with the Google article? It seems too small and not very notable by itself.   swa  q  23:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge This seems like a Permastub right now. I'm not even sure that this model was pioneered by google - I thought that 3M had a similar policy. It feels a bit like hype rather than encyclopedic content. Andjam (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment correct, not just Google, which is why it's a Keep not merge with Google! SunCreator (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge with Google. Topic is too small to warrant an individual article. Luk  suh  03:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This may be a bad faith nom due to an anti-google bias on the nominator's part. They are part of a sockpuppet case where this is included: Suspected sock puppets/LightSpeed JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep stub. Well documented with independent reliable source (CNN), but needs additional information such as the application of the rule, purpose, and so forth. B.Wind (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per JJL. Secondary sources exist.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.