Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Search

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Mz7 (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future Search

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

Promotional, poorly referenced, and no clear notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete subject not meet Wikipedia's generally notability guidelines. HINDWIKI • CHAT 02:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 04:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like an instruction book on how to do one... Also, it has been sitting on a cleanup tag since 2009 and is directly sourced by just one primary source. Gatemansgc (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Originally a WP:SPA article in 2008 and, as an IP critic said on the Talk page in 2009, it seems designed to direct traffic towards the book. I did find a comparative text which covers this approach ("Appreciative Future Search: Involving the Whole System in Positive Organization Change", Organization Development Journal, 2000 – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) which might underpin an article, but the current article content is so promotional as to require starting-over. If anything, this method could be more appropriately covered under the Collaborative problem-solving group article. AllyD (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2017 (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.