Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explosive Growth


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Explosive Growth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:GNG, the best coverage out of the sources provided is a two sentence blurb in Entrepreneur (and I'm not even sure if they're generally RS) in an article giving similar overviews of half a dozen books. Other provided sources do not appear to be reliable. I was unable to find any substantial reviews in reliable sources searching online. signed,Rosguill talk 03:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 03:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 03:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

At the very least rename. I can imagine some good-faith reader searching for "explosive growth" and expecting to find something of the likes of exponential growth rather than some obscure book by someone not notable enough for his own article with an app not notable enough for its own article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - I see two reviews - one in Irish Tech News (which appears to be a WP:NEWSORG) and very brief one in Entrepreneur Europe list. I think the first review is WP:SIGCOV but the second is really more of a sales pitch for it and barely discusses its content. Per WP:NBOOK we need two non-trivial reviews which are not flap copy, I think the first review passes this but not the second. FOARP (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , Is Irish Tech News a reliable source? Based on my limited experience seeing it pop up in references, they mostly seem to run borderline-promotional business press, and the review cited on this article literally has a blurb at the bottom of the page asking for businesses to reach out to them to be featured on the website. Looking at the article itself in more detail, fully half of the text in the article is promotional copy. The actual review itself reads like a middle school book report, although I'm not sure how much that matters. signed,Rosguill talk 21:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The thing is if half the article reads like it is promotional material, then the other half does not, and even though it does ask for companies to advertise with them it doesn't have anything saying that the article itself is promotional. Yeah, it's pretty borderline but since it has an editorial team etc. it does appear to be a WP:NEWSORG ased on the fact it claims to have an editorial team etc., though more evidence could easily change my mind about that. FOARP (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete promotional, with promotional and otherwise unreliable references.  DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.