Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovation saturation

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. Courcelles 08:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation saturation[edit]

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

Theory is completely ignored by economic (or other) research (see Google Scholar). Article was written mostly by the book author Tom Osenton (User:Tosenton) himself. Qualifies as WP:SOAP. bender235 (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP PianoDan (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 00:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a single non-notable idea from a non-notable book full of ideas. The article is almost pure WP:OR and having done a basic search I can't find anything that would suggest this is a notable concept or term. Stalwart111 01:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if this entire article is based on those three sources and the subject has received virtually zero coverage from secondary sources, then this is a perfect candidate for deletion. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just marked up 2 dead links in article. That does leave one ref which is stated to cite Osenton. Even assuming that's true it wouldn't be enough to save this soapbox. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.