Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LOEModel


 * 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. Assertions of "deletionist mania" are not particularly strong, and the other arguments in favor of retention don't address the nominator's concern. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

LOEModel

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Seems to be a non-notable business method or some such. All sources are primary from the same author. Zero google books hits. Pcap ping  02:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC) PLEASE NOTE- The authors of the LOE Model/Index are the creators of this model. The diverse citations substantiate the extension of the LOE Model from academic theory to the practical business application. One citation is a textbook for multinational organizations used globally in highly competitive business schools. Another is a strenuously peer reviewed Organizational and Societal Academic Journal. And still another, is a Journal reviewed and subscribed to by business leaders across the United States. The LOE Model and the LOE Index have both been rigorously validated utilizing both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Both the LOE Model and the LOE Index have been used in consulting engagements with clients ranging from the Federal Government, Non-Profit Agencies and For-Profit Companies.
 * Delete, non-notable academic theory. I can't find significant independent coverage under "LOE Model," "Loss of Effectiveness Model," or other variations.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 02:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The author of the LOE Model as edited the page adding a note about the references. Traceablecreations (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm copying the note here, because it does not belong in the article:
 * I agree that the primary sources are peer reviewed, as are the vast majority of academic works. I still don't see secondary sources though. Pcap ping  17:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The model of an organizational LOE hypothesizes that an organization transitioning through an organizational change initiative will experience a loss of stability that results in the exhibition of symptoms that are predictable, measurable, and can negatively impact the overall effectiveness of an organization. These symptoms include: decreased productivity, decreased morale, decreased motivation, increased conflict, increased absenteeism, and increased turnover. To me, this seems to be saying that if you mess with people's routine, they don't perform as well.  I am not convinced that we need a neologism to convey the substance of this discovery. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - It does not help your case to change the substance of someone else's !vote, as you did with this edit. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on the citations, it would appear that leadership in both academia and business disagree with previously posted the assessment. Secondary sources citing the work have been posted. Traceablecreations (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nor does it help to !vote twice. And citing the dissertation manuscript of one of her Ph.D. students is grasping at straws. Pcap ping  18:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Voting twice" unintended. I'm sure you can tell that I am a "newbie". Wikipedia isn't exactly intuitive.. and isn't there some "Wikietiquette" about not being rude to newbie's. It's also my understanding the "votes" aren't actually counted. Traceablecreations 20:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any edits to anyone's vote done by anyone associated with the creation of this article was absolutely unintentional and likely a result of attempting to copy and paste to use the proper code in editing this page. Traceablecreations 20:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As to the comment about Beverly Magda: She was NOT one of her PhD students, she is a colleague who chose to site Dr. Grady's work. This colleague also graduated from GWU. Traceablecreations 20:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. And stop the crazy deletionist mania.  This article has a dozen solid citations and looks well written.  LotLE × talk  20:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Keep" I agree that is article has sufficient citations and that academic and business leaders alike seem to agree with the model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.202.183 (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, zero secondary sources. Article is promotional, written by people with a COI. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:56, 14 January 2010 (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.