Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attitude based interview

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. Courcelles 21:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude based interview (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable interview technique, primarily spamvertizement Gaijin42 (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I find it hard to see how this technique is "notable" by itself. Nom is 100% on the money with this one. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Attitude based interview is a structured set of questions (17 in total) that allows to create an extensive individual profile of someone’s attitudes, work and motivation strategies. You do not only listen to the specific content, but you also hold the structure of the answer into account. This way you actually ‘understand’ a person and are able to predict future behaviour. You actually can decode an individual, a job, a team and even a whole organization. That's what horoscopes are for. And, let me guess. The seventeen magic questions aren't going to be in the article, right? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources about this interview technique. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.