Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of HR Quantification


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Theory of HR Quantification

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

spammy nonsense created by a user to promote to "researchers" Pooja Jain and Pranjal Jain, sourced entirely to their own work and providers of HR (aka spam.) Praxidicae (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. At first glance this looks like it has lots of cites: but the journal articles proposing this theory from Jain and Jain have only been published this month. All the independent citations have earlier dates and so cannot be about this theory and do not lend notability. Maybe in time, but right now this does not meet WP:GNG and is a case of WP:TOOSOON. - MrOllie (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. All primary references have been removed and they have been replaced with secondary, notable and verifiable references. I appreciate your efforts and I thank you for mentioning your concern. I am a new editor and I understand that I have a lot to learn in order to contribute at this prestigious platform. The subject matter of this thread has been in consideration since 2016. The external sources citing the provisions of The Theory of HR Quantification may be found by using some other keywords such as HR Analytics, Quantify Human Resources etc. This is how I came to know about the existence of this Theory. There is a lot of content to add in it. I have been enthusiastically working but being a beginner, it is taking me a lot of time to place things at the right order. I value your opinion and seek suggestions for further improvement.Ronnystarboy (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed as a sock of, the author of the paper in question. &#8209; Iridescent 18:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not an encyclopedic topic. Quantitative methods have always been used in business, including HR, the article is an attempt to take perfectly routine operations and give them a special name.  DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * comment. The article was nominated for deletion on the basis of two concerns. However, both of them have been adequately addressed. Since the first concern mentioned about non availability of sufficient external sources, the article has been thoroughly revised pursuant to which all the primary sources have been removed (even from external links as well) and they have been replaced with secondary, notable and verifiable sources. The second concern flagged non availability of encyclopedic material. I would like to bring into your notice that the other contents which were briefly mentioned earlier, have now been sufficiently detailed. The "quantitative methods" are just a component of the article and not the entire article in itself. Therefore not giving due consideration to other aspects may not do justice to the article. The image uploaded is about the computation methodology of Organizational Feedback Index. It has been explained in the column Organizational Feedback Index that it denotes a step by step process following which an OFI score value is determined. This score value explains the level of employee empowerment present in an organization. Similarly other innovative concepts of The Theory have been detailed out. I express my apologies for being unable to reach the desired contribution quality. I thank you all for your valuable opinion following which I have made the necessary improvements. Since all the concerns have been addressed, I request the page should be kept and it should not be deleted.Ronnystarboy (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * you only get one !vote. Also you need to read WP:PAID. Praxidicae (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - We don't publish original research. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Lordofthesky (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Sockpuppet votestacking by article creator struck &#8209; Iridescent 11:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The article in its present form has 19 cites, out of which, , and are based upon the article in their entirety. Hence it clearly meets WP:NOR. Further, complete article meets WP:NPOV, hence there is no question of "promoting" anyone. Other references have writers from different continents such as , and etc. This shows it is a topic of relevance, it has global interest and is undoubtedly meeting WP:GNG. Seems that all flags for deletion have been settled.
 * Delete per DGG above. The idea that applying quantative methods to HR issues is somehow a new idea is just bizarre (otherwise, why have I spent a tediously large part of the three decades since this fad began either completing or assessing employee feedback and assessment forms and completing pointless engagement surveys?). If this particular paper had received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources then the paper could be notable in Wikipedia terms as a noteworthy publication even though the actual claims are non-noteworthy, but it's far too new to be talking in those terms. &#8209; Iridescent 21:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. As per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, new editors should be encouraged WP:ENCOURAGE, Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Be nice to the newbies,  and not discouraged by citing their contribution as “spammy nonsense” WP:Bite, WP:Goodfaith. While senior editors have placed their opinion, nobody considered the fact that despite of being approved through WP:AFC, the article was nominated for deletion in just 13 hours of its creation. How any editor in the global community could have contributed to this article development in just 13 hours so that it would not have fallen here at the first place.

Wikipedia policies and guidelines are perspicaciously transparent that deletion of a new page created by a new editor should be avoided. Was this page extremely irrelevant that it was nominated for deletion in just 13 hours? Mentioning some policies for ready reference:

“13. Avoid deleting newly created articles, as inexperienced authors might still be working on them or trying to figure something out.” WP:BITE

“If an article is accepted, new page reviewers may choose to apply maintenance tags for significant problems”

'“A newcomer may save a tentative first draft to see if they are even allowed to start an article, with plans to expand it if there is no backlash. If, within a few minutes, the article is plastered with cleanup tags, assessed as a "stub" or even suggested for deletion, they may give up. It is better to wait a few days to see how a harmless article evolves than to rush to criticize.”' WP:BITE

Despite of being categorized as “Start”, the Article has improved a lot. If quantitative techniques does not offer something of interest, a particular section can be easily erased. Does it mean that entire page has nothing left to offer? Does the concepts of Feedback Index, Organizational Feedback Index and Employee Feedback Index have no reference? If "Start" Class Articles have no place on Wikipedia, then why is there even a categorization for such? Were all the "FA" Class Articles introduced as such or they were too introduced as "Start" or "Stub" Enoughisenough123 (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Yet another sock of the article subject struck. &#8209; Iridescent 18:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I suspect you know perfectly well, new account whose first edit was to selectively quote chunks of Wikipedia essays in an obscure AfD debate, WP:BITE and all its related essays relate to work by genuine good-faith new editors, not to a serial abuser of Wikipedia policies posting a piece of obvious spam (and an undeclared autobiography to boot, unless you're seriously going to try to claim that is somehow unconnected to Pooja Jain). &#8209; Iridescent 11:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I suspect you know perfectly well, new account whose first edit was to selectively quote chunks of Wikipedia essays in an obscure AfD debate, WP:BITE and all its related essays relate to work by genuine good-faith new editors, not to a serial abuser of Wikipedia policies posting a piece of obvious spam (and an undeclared autobiography to boot, unless you're seriously going to try to claim that is somehow unconnected to Pooja Jain). &#8209; Iridescent 11:53, 3 May 2020 (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.