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. Not a lot of input here, but I've also reviewed the article, and it's a clear delete. Could probably have been ((prod))ed. -Splash - tk 22:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E-Myth[edit]

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

While the topic of this article is fuzzy, the lede suggests the core of the topic is the term, which would be unlikely to meet WP:NEO. The article also indicates it's a brand and a company as well. Refactoring to something else might be possible, but the existing article has some serious problems. I will be removing some content for a serious POV concern, the current revision at the time of nomination can be found here. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 22 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 28 October 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.