Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nine money personalities 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nine money personalities model

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

I found no significant coverage and the developer doesn't even have an article. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not sure how this article has slipped through the notability policies these past 7 years, but it has no independent coverage and fails the GNG. — Quasar G. 21:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be a proprietary model used in commercial training materials published by the Coaches Training Institute, so mentions in books published by that company are not independent. I was unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unremarkable Dr. Kathleen Gurney's opinion on an arbitrary number of "money personalities" does not an encyclopedia article make. Fails WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and no reliable sources. --Lockley (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2017 (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.