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 keep. Consensus is to keep - even delete comments acknowledge that the topic exists and has sources. The main point of contention is how to deal with the topic - to merge it elsewhere was considered but found inappropriate as this is a distinct study, and the amount of material would weigh down proposed targets. Much discussion was focused on the exact name, but nothing definite was decided. Opening a page move discussion to find the most helpful name would be the next appropriate stage. SilkTork (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super-chicken Model[edit]

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

Super-chicken 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)

Subject is very unclear with few (if any?) reliable sources for verification on what exactly it is. There's no real context offered to the article on what makes it different than other experiments on selection or genetics. Citing (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks for finding those! Do you have any thoughts on the article title? I don't know if this idea goes by other names (or if just "Super chicken" would work).Citing (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will let some other editors weigh in. I think it could be an article just about the research of Muir, or merge to a future article. I find some non-RS references in which businesses make reference to the research application in a business productivity model. Lightburst (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) One more note: As of now, including the four cites above and one additional relevant one on the page, we have two versions of the TED Talk (TED and NPR), two commentaries on the TED Talk (Inc and RB, which both read like 'I just saw an interesting TED Talk'), and just one (Forbes) talking about business in general without mentioning the TED Talk. Whether this is really a full-fledged business model, independent of its proposer's TED Talk, and not just somebody's TED Talk that gets mentioned occasionally when someone new sees it, is the difference between notability and not. Agricolae (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Agricolae: I hear your concerns. Regarding the body and intro, I just started today so it is disjointed, and had hopes that some more ARS may adopt this for clean up. It seems that businesses have adopted the research and applied it to business. That of course is not RS. But it is a thing...Healthcare Think Tank, More reference to this concept, Corporate Mental Health. (mostly blogs) Lightburst (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: Yes - good points: the actual research project at Purdue which was then applied to a business or workplace environment. I will continue to look for RS in that business application. Otherwise this article should just be about the research of Muir - or perhaps an article should be developed for William Muir (biologist). At this point not much RS regarding the business application, just the individual businesses which have adopted referred to this concept. Lightburst (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not opposed to a merge if there's a sensible target (whether Muir, Heffernan, etc.). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c, again - bad timing today) Muir's body of research is pretty low-profile, except for being plucked from the literature as the basis for the TED Talk. It is not like the Stanford prison experiment, where that is all you have to say and those familiar with the field will know exactly what you are talking about. I also suspect that there are a body of analogous experiments done by other researchers on other animals that are just as well known in the field but didn't happen to be the one read by the TED presenter. I don't know Muir outside of this discussion. Maybe he satisfies notability standards for scientists, because they allow a whole lot of obscure scientists to have vanity pages, but I would find it hard to believe William Muir's chicken research would be notable. Agricolae (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another article related to medical education, Can doctors learn from super chickens? StrayBolt (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And in the book, Effective DevOps: Building a Culture of Collaboration, Affinity, and Tooling. StrayBolt (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which only says that Heffernan used the term "super-chicken model" in her TED Talk. That gives the distinct impression that "super-chicken model" has no significant currency outside of this one TED, that it is nothing but a neologism. ('Super-chicken(s)' alone is also a neologism, but appears to be generating greater currency.) Likewise, this presents the model the same way our one previous secondary source presented it, and differently than we do (as the less-productive approach, not as an understanding of why it is less productive). So either the only two secondary sources we have for the 'model' term are misrepresenting it (not a strong argument for notability) or we have it wrong. Agricolae (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And yet again, nowhere in it is there any mention of a 'super-chicken model' - lots of super-chickens, and talk of various models, but it doesn't refer to anything as a super-chicken model (the closest it gets is referring to a "super-chicken group" which isn't the same thing). Thus far, there is only one secondary source here that mentions a "super-chicken model" and they use the term differently than we are. It is hard to justify the namespace on that basis. If this ends in a keep, the page really needs to be moved off of its completely unsupported current namespace, perhaps to Super-chicken(s), and the description recast accordingly. If it stays as super-chicken model, then we need to define super-chicken model the same way the only secondary source to use the term defines it: "Super-chicken model refers to a manner of team recruitment that favors bringing together high achievers, but that proves less productive than a recruitment model emphasizing collaboration over individual excellence." or something like that. Agricolae (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Agricolae: You my be correct about the name - I feel like from the research the name Super-chicken has been accepted in both the Muir research and the business references, IMO the descriptive that follows (model) or does not follow is not yet universally accepted in the lexicon. The article's creator chose the word model and we have not heard that editor. The editor who started this article was not notified, so I placed a message on their talk page. I am unsure by your !vote and follow up comments if you still believe the article should be deleted, or just renamed? My opinion is that the title of Super-chicken would be a confusing and misleading target. Lightburst (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first part is easy. Based on the references brought forward thus far, I have no choice but to conclude that Super-chicken Model [capital 'M'] isn't really a thing. It is just an adjective [small 'm'] that Heffernan used to describe one of the two contrasting scenarios. The phenomenon where the team-builders do better as a group than the hyper-A-types is the thing, but the phenomenon is not what is called the 'super-chicken model' by any of our sources, apparently including Heffernan. As such, if this namespace is what is up for a vote, my vote is Delete. On the other hand, were the page to be renamed and the description changed to simply super-chicken(s), or even super-chicken phenomenon ([small 'p'] where 'phenomenon' is serving as a descriptor and not part of the formal name - something 'model' can't do both because it is used by Heffernan to refer to something different, and it is not quite 'on the nose' linguistically) and the descriptions modified accordingly, then I am still not convinced that it is notable either, as opposed to NEO and TOOSOON. However, I agree that it appears to be getting there, and it's a close call. That means were this page currently called by one of those alternative names (with a description to match), I would probably Abstain, but likewise it means I don't want to vote for a Rename because I remain unconvinced the alternative is notable enough, but certainly that would be better than the current namespace. So in summary, Super-chicken Model is still Delete, Super-chicken(s)/(phenomenon) is a Confused Shrug. Agricolae (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to quibble over one thing, the NPR reference is not from the news and other daytime topics fare, but from the TED Radio hour, which is basically TED cross-marketing for a public radio audience. I am not sure I would count that as all that independent of Heffernan's original TED Talk. (e.g. Fresh Air draws from across the cultural spectrum, from journalism to music to fiction to history, etc. When the TED Radio hour is produced, they pick a TED Talk they liked - not the same thing.) That doesn't affect the rest of the analysis, though. Agricolae (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good point; the NPR source is shaky on the independence requirement of GNG. If I had to pick another, I'd probably go with Evonomics or MD Magazine–except I haven't researched them enough to know if they're solid RSes or not. – Levivich 04:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is part of my problem - not familiar enough to distinguish a business/econ RS from a glorified blog, hype-site or 'paper mill' (except Forbes, of course). Agricolae (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes would be one of my top 3 if it wasn't for the fact that it links to this damn article. I hate it when RSes do that. I wish they'd stop citing us so that we can cite them. – Levivich 05:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two different things are being conflated here. A study about actual chickens, and the topic of this article : an analogy about human organizations, loosely based on the actual chickens. Sources demonstrating notability for the former do not imply notability for the latter. ApLundell (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to artificially limit the scope of this article narrowly. No reason to do that. The studies and concepts are interrelated and potentially useful to readers. Legal relevance is not required. We should err on the side of too much of the irrelevant, rather than too little of the relevant. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a relevant point though. What is this article about? A model? An experiment? An analogy? Some new business slang/a neologism? If we can't answer that question because not enough has been written about the topic, then we can't write a good article without going into original research.Citing (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levich has suggested a proper title which would speak to the concerns expressed in this AfD: Super chicken study. Lightburst (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside your main point, the quote from the Heffernan TED talk makes it clear that even to her, the 'model' refers to the less-productive approach, (a small 'm' model, used to describe the less effective thing some companies do, not a big 'M' Model that is an established part of the toolkit that companies set out to employ, or as we describe it, a big 'M' model that is a tool for understanding the dynamic). Contrary to what the lede says, it doesn't "postulate" anything, nor help understand anything, it is just a style of recruitment. I am going to change the lede to reflect this, but the text will need to be changed again if the AfD results in any of the moves that have been suggested. Agricolae (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2019 (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.
More