Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The four dimensions of distance


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The four dimensions of distance

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Essay on a relatively non-notable NEO (I figure maybe 100 GHits, it's hard to tell because the phrase pulls up a lot of stuff that doesn't actually relate to this article) discussion of one framework for evaulating paths of corporate expansion. It's possible that a signficant rewrite of this article, renamed, could be a useful encyclopedia article, but I'm not sure where I'd start, and the non-notability is still an issue. Joe Decker (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC) (concern clarified --Joe Decker (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. --Ckatz chat spy  04:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable neologism, an essay of original synthesis, and likely stealth advertising meant to promote someone's non-notable book or consulting business: Expanding business in other countries is an important decision for corporations because it will influence the corporations’ success or failure in the future. However, to expand business, setting up a strategy is the most important part because it is a direction or a map for the corporation to follow. A good strategy forces the company to do more analysis and research, such as analyzing the four dimensions of distance: Cultural, Administrative, Geographic and Economic (CAGE). - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. OR. Szzuk (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. andy (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Too promotional  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete reads like pure spam of someone's pet management theory, and mostly OR as the key points seem unsourced.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NEO and WP:OR certainly. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - this seems to be part of some sort of college project or other group activity. There are three other articles with very similar characteristics - see the Village Pump here. andy (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - awful, but I think it could be fixed; however, on the other hand, it looks like too much work. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fairly clearly case of WP:NEO to me. --Darkwind (talk) 04:46, 25 April 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.