Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leading practice discovery

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. → Call me Hahc21 21:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leading practice discovery[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find any independent secondary sources on the subject. An unsourced article written in essay form. Exceeded 7 days using Proposed Deletion, however template was removed by creator. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:VERIFICATION. The term "Leading practice discovery" does not seem to be in common use. One of the articles sources, and the only online source I can find that uses the term "Leading practice discovery" seem likely to have been written by this article's author. Meters (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From the author: there's quite a bit in the literature but I am still in the steep part of the learning curve about how to work in the Wiki space. I do leading practice discovery for a living but just need time to pull things together to meet the criteria for inclusion. Michael A Anthony PE (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I recommend you use WP:AFC next time so you can get your articles up to scratch before moving them into mainspace. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete No book hits, no GScholar hits; a large part of the web hits are us or our copies. Surely not notable now. Mangoe (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2014 (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.