Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploratory product development

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. Tone 08:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Exploratory product development

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Exploratory product development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Exploratory PD (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem notable, fails WP:GNG. All the sources here and elsewhere are by the two proponents of the approach, their business, and the group that gave them a grant. In general, when I come across the phrase "exploratory product development" in web pages turned up by Google, it's being used generically, not to refer to the methodology of these people. Google Scholar is the same. "Exploratory PD" also turns up nothing to support WP:GNG. Largoplazo (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: This is, at very best, an example of WP:TOOSOON, and at worst the actually-funded-somehow academic analogue to a drinking game indigenous to a particular fraternity house. The prodigious use of vanity capitalization/a CamelCase initialism is indicative of the substance and notability deficiencies. Thank you for nominating this, Largoplazo. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 9 October 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.