This article was nominated for deletion on 29 August 2020. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article appears to cover the same ideas as PEST analysis. Its format consists of little more than dot points, mostly unreferenced and is poorly written. The last paragraph (which incidentally is the only paragraph written in prose rather than dot points) appears to be at odds with the main body by introducing new environments (i.e. environments that are not discusssed in the body, and environments that the lead section is at pains to suggest were lacking in other frameworks, hence the necessity for six segments analysis).

Of the three references that are used, they are very poor quality and arguably do not meet Wikipedia's reliability guidelines. The bulk of the article appears to be based on a slideshare resource which has since been suspended because it violated slideshare's terms of agreement.

The main article, PEST analysis is OK. There is simply no need to replicate it with another article using a different title. Why not simply add a qualifier to the article on PEST analysis, noting that the analytical framework is sometimes known as "six segments analysis"?

A quick search of Google indicates that the term "six segments analysis" is only used by a handful of academics, whereas the term, PEST analysis, is widely used.

This article is not only confusing and poorly conceptualised, but duplicates content canvassed in other articles. It is a very strong candidate for deletion.

BronHiggs (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]