Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long vs short term orientation

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Long vs short term orientation

What is this? Is it real? I don't know what to think... Master Thief Garrett 09:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Copyvio is what it is (unless the anon who created it is the author of [1], in which case it's original research. FreplySpang (talk) 17:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio takes precedence but the concept behind the article should be kept once a non-copyvio version is created. The existence of this concept is well sourced at Hofstede. Rossami (talk) 01:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Even if it wasn't a copyvio (i.e., the uploader is also the author) that would fall under No Original Research, wouldn't it? I'd sooner see it just plain deleted. If at some indistinct time someone else wants to recreate it, then that's fine. As it is, we'd need someone quite knowledgeable in the subject to replace it with an adequate article... Master Thief Garrett 03:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.