Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choosing By Advantages


 * 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   delete. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Choosing By Advantages

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a long article about one of those goofy business-management processes that comes with its own language and acronyms. Most of the sources are primary - either publications by the method's inventor, or conference proceedings with a common author, a single professor who seems to have adopted the approach. That professor is an author on the conference proceedings, an organizer of the conference, and the supervisor for all of the theses cited. The closest this comes to secondary coverage is a discussion in an engineering management society newsletter, which is only secondary in the sense that it is discussing previous presentations made at society meetings. Google didn't turn up any additional independent coverage. The article also reads like a copyvio - created in one shot, spurious references to nonexistent figures, etc. - but I didn't find a source. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looking at the creator's other contributions, I suspect paid editing here. Deb (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This does not appear to be a notable concept and smacks of Original Research. The article reads like an essay or journal article rather than a Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2015 (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.