Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypergrowth


 * 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 redirect to Adam Osborne. Content can be merged from history as desired.  Sandstein  10:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hypergrowth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Is this book notable? I couldn't find any reviews or such except that InfoWorld run three excerpts from the book, and in the first one seems to be accompanied by a review (see p.58-60). Is a single review sufficient to establish the book's notability? Can anyone find something more? If we can find even one more, I'd be happy to withdraw this nom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 08:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 08:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment This book has its own section in the Adam Osborne article, pretty much the same content. If no more sources about this book are found, redirect could be an ideal outcome. Note I would prefer redirect in any case, as I doubt anyone will expand this article above content yet in the Adam Osborne article, and this book has some basic notability (eg. InfoWorld coverage). Pavlor (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Soft deletion through redirecting would be fine by me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 16:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I using an google search and filled in 2 bare references, this article about the book of lead is too short and may not meet to WP:NB, if can't be WP:independent, these materials (including the sources) can be merge and redirect to Adam Osborne and John C. Dvorak at the book section. SA 13</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Hoping one last relist can help with sources.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Soft delete and redirect. The book is not notable and no reviews. Lorstaking (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect: I agree with Lorstaking, the book is not very meet-able to WP:NB which I have commented at above in previously. It shall be redirected to Adam Osborne, and John C. Dvorak as well at the book section. <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2017 (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.