Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Growth leadership

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Growth leadership[edit]

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

Mysteriously contested prod. Article flopped onto wiki in one piece on 5 August, was rapidly tagged and prod'd as original research and WP:ESSAY, tags and prod removed 12 August, article never touched since. THF (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is a blatant advert, kill it. Roger (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as original prod-er. Spam. Toddst1 (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam for a non-notable book, also patent nonsense, a flimsy gauze of glittering generalities: Growth leaders are responding to the new organizational realities. They are also assembling and applying various “intelligences” that allow them to function creatively in an increasingly complex and challenging business environment. These social, emotional, moral, and cultural, intelligences have proven their worth over the years, and growth leaders may be making special use of them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdis. Just edges out of being a spam Speedy Delete, but it's a narrow thing. The key here is that there is no real evidence to suggest that the concept as presented is notable at all. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable 84.9.159.20 (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2010 (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.