Deletion of Super-chicken Model

Comment: e/c) I am ambivalent about this one.  It certainly, as an article, has some glaring problems.  First the name itself: of the four references given in the previous !vote, two (Forbes and Inc is this considered a ?) never refer to it as a model (or use the word 'model' at all), while one (Real Business ?) uses the term to refer to something different than how this article defines it.  We say "The behavioral model attempts to explain how competitiveness in the workplace can be counter-productive in business" but the Real Business article, as I understand, it is calling the 'super-chicken model' the way of doing business that places emphasis on super-performers - in other words, the s-c model is the less-productive approach, not an explanation of why it is less-productive, as our definition suggests.  (And I don't have time to listen to a TED talk, but even if it does define it the way our article is defining it, it is not a good sign that the secondary sources don't use it that way, and mostly don't use it at all.)  Forbes' use of 'super-chicken phenomenon' is closer to our definition, because phenomenon clearly refers to the whole scenario and not just one option.  Moving from the lede to the body, nothing is said in the body about business at all, just chickens, but this article, to be noteworthy, can't be about a chicken experiment, the chicken experiment can only be providing context for a way of viewing business, but what should be the focus of the body is completely absent.  I know AfD is not cleanup, but this is so much of a mess I don't even know what to make of it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)