Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essential factors model

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. czar 04:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Essential factors model

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Essential factors model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A consulting paradigm that does not appear to meet WP:GNG. As near as I can tell, this neologism was coined by InterSafe Consultants, an apparently non-notable consulting firm, and has received exactly one brief critical mention in an RS. In CAT:NN since 2016; PRODded in 2015 and seemed to involve a fair amount of WP:COI editing. The company requested that this article be deleted in March of this year, but it doesn't appear that anything ever happened after that. (To be clear: I am not a representative of InterSafe: I came across this page when looking through CAT:NN.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nomination and the fact that it's incomprehensibly written. XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, there is no sign of notability here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2020 (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.