Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Arms Of Value (FAV)


 * 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Four Arms Of Value (FAV)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clear violation of WP:NOTESSAY- the tone is not NPOV as it uses the first person. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Also, it's a theory created by the creator themselves. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also vetted by prestigious educational institutes and used by many companies so not just a theory but a practical model. Not sure by i am having a discussion with some computer geek about this citing all these clauses that are clearly irrelevantHaqinam01 (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why does the article not mention the reviews by the institutes. Has it not gotten any news coverage or journal write-ups? —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * please check the linksHaqinam01 (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Five of the six "references" are to the creator's own writings; they are not secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, per WP:GNG. No evidence of coverage in secondary sources. The only source cited in the article not written by the creator of the concept is a passing mention in a list-type blog post. —C.Fred (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

* delete - fails WP:NOTABILITY and lacks reliable secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The material is also copied from the creator's company's website, http://lam-inc.com/four-arms-of-value-assessment/. Do we need to consider speedy deletion for spam or copyright reasons? —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ The bot says 98% chance of copyvio, added G12 speedy language. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 100% chance it came from that site, since they just changed the site to place it under CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Of course, that also confirms the original research angle. I've removed the copyvio tag. —C.Fred (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * delete - fails WP:NOTABILITY and lacks reliable independent secondary sources per GOLDEN RULE Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Multiple searches failed to find something good and that wasn't primary. SwisterTwister   talk  05:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 08:05, 2 May 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.