Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affinity Technique

A group problem solving technique. No references to help us judge its notability. Difficult to judge from a Google search for "affinity technique" because many of the hits relate to affinity chromatography. Also written as an how-to guide. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable references provided, seems made up. Dwilso 01:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources and as written it doesn't actually make much sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have heard of this and a Google book search shows results. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL SunCreator (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources aren't discussing what is being described in the article. The article is semi-nonsense about shuffling around index cards on the floor. It's nothing to do with protein or DNA, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree the top book seems to be fully in keeping with the article. ::Fundamentals of Total Quality Management: Process Analysis and Improvement - Page 139 by Jens J. Dahlgaard, Kai Kristensen, Ghopal K. Khanji - Business & Economics - 2005 - 372 pages

'One of the exercises that the groups did was to use the affinity technique (after

proper introduction to the technique) to define and group elements that ...' SunCreator (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Supposing, hypothetically, that this were a current rage or a mindblowing method, it would be information housed in an article on problem solving or whatever type of psychology/business this is. By itself, it's a method. Until the method draws significant commentary, about itself, there is no article to be written on it. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like most such "techniques", the point here seems to be to make up neologisms to give the appearance of system and teachability - and therefore, sellability - to unremarkable and pre-existing methods that you probably could have thought up yourself. This one does us the favour of actually describing the process taught, which makes its obviousness pretty self-evident. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]