Mathematical growth: The sources are to a high school textbook, community college course notes, and StackExchange.  The content itself is little more than a compilation of the ledes of the relevant main articles, where they exist, and OR (even if obviously factually correct) where they don't.  Fermiboson ( talk ) 02:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions .  Fermiboson ( talk ) 02:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Pure WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH , just describing mathematical models that "grow" or "decay" (which is literally every mathematical function other than a constant).   It's well-written so I guess I could accept a redirect to Function (mathematics) but there is nothing here that isn't better covered in other articles.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 03:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , very hard to see what the purpose of this article is, but basically it's just describing mathematical functions that, um, grow.  Possibly monotonically, or possibly not.  If we have to make this a redirect I won't object but the article doesn't say anything that isn't said elsewhere.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 12:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Not only is this an OR/SYNTH student essay, it's an incorrect one at that.  The Fibonacci sequence is an exponential one, with an exponent base of *Phi*.  There's nothing here worth merging.  If turning this into a redirect, I'd rather have it redirect to Fast-growing hierarchy or even Ackermann function .  Owen× ☎ 22:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As stated in the article's Talk page, the intent of this article was to address the many incorrect descriptions of growth in the media and elsewhere, and to provide an overview of the types and terminology of growth, with helpful examples.  Such an summary is not available on Wikipedia or anywhere else, to my knowledge.  I believe many Wikipedia users would benefit from this kind of simple, non-technical description.  Pbergerd ( talk ) 17:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you very much for your civil participation.  This article is not suitable for inclusion for some of the following reasons: - WP:NOTTEXTBOOK .  Wikipedia does not exist to instruct or teach, it records information of notability or importance, and definitely not to address inccorrect descriptions of any kind .  - If we ignore that for a moment, the article is still of questionable value.  As others have pointed out, the article appears to attempt to list significant (by some definition) examples of monotonically(?) growing functions.  We don't have articles on every type of thing that could ever exist, and there is no real reason why these functions, which may be individually deserving of an article, belong in this paticular list rather than, say, "List of real-valued functions" or "List of functions which are integrable on an open domain" or "List of functions with a finitely terminating Laurent series", etc.  In summry, the scope is not well defined, and can never be well defined.  - The fact that these functions "grow" are not considered particularly important by any significant sources (sure, everyone agrees that they do grow, but at most a sentence or two is devoted to the fact that it does).  The concept of growing functions, as a whole, is also not that important on its own (it is important as a precondition for other properties, such as Sandwich theorem , or as part of a narrower class of functions such as Monotonic function ); you won't be able to find a scholarly article of any sort describing the "properties of growing functions".  Fermiboson ( talk ) 16:27, 22 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete