Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Competitiveness Amplification 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Competitiveness Amplification Model

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

Non-notable economic model. Only provided ref appears to be a promotional or self-published/-reported item from the company itself (the article identifies the subject as some sort of analysis apparently based on the corporate or other non-obviously-notable data source). Need independent, secondary sources reporting on and/or validating the model. The subject appears to be Danish, which may be preventing me from finding some sources. But the given source is only from November 2014, so it could also be too new to have secondaries available (which is in keeping with TOOSOON/not-yet-notable). DMacks (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – WP:PROMOTION. This appears to be just the name that a consulting company has invented for its advice. Apart from them, zero hits on Google web/scholar/books. Article created and edited by the company. It seems we're not missing anything in Danish, because on their Danish website they use the English name "The Competitiveness Amplification Model". – Margin1522 (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This ref is worth taking a look at but I don't think it is enough to make me say keep. —Noah 06:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure WP:ADMASQ. Pax 19:26, 11 February 2015 (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.