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. Kurykh (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Value Hill[edit]

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

Cannot see any reason why this ghastly lump of marketing jargon is in any way notable TheLongTone (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the Value Hill as a nice new way of looking at circular business models. Especially the methaphorically visualisation of the idea behind a circular economy, be it the prolongation of the use of products and materials in its highest value possible. Michiel100(talk) 16:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello, your comments above amount to "it's interesting" or "I like it". These in and of themselves are not valid reasons to keep an article. If you want this article to be kept, you need to demonstrate that it meets the notability criteria for inclusion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A business management concept that is sourced entirely to promotional materials and does not indicate any independent, significant coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:28, 23 May 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.