mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative problem solving Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Creative_problem_solving

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 no consensus. No consensus to delete the pre-spammy version. I'll allow someone else to remove the offensive portions, and return this to an article about the concept (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative problem solving

[edit]
Creative problem solving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In its present form, this is basically an ad for a book by User:VoteFair, who feels he is the World's Greatest Authority on the topic, and edits the article persistently and diligently. Orange Mike | Talk 01:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The article is unbalanced and the Lateral Thinking article shows a rather similar problem. I dare say "lateral thinking" is immediately associated with de Bono whereas "creative problem solving" has (for me) no such personal association. I wonder if some merging of the various techniques would be useful. Anyway that is an editorial matter and deletion is not the best way to start. Thincat (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC) See comment below Thincat (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Ok, I went through some of the older versions of the article and picked out bits and pieces that seemed to be of value. I have removed everything that looked like promotional material to me, and replaced content that seemed to have been removed without good reason. I still don't know if the article is salvageable, but I have done my best to repair the damage. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly encourage VoteFair to create a separate article about his self published book, as I am certain that the excessive self promotion is what caught the eye of the nominator in the first place. I think that this article is fixable, and will probably be kept. My fear is that lessons will not be learned, and this will happen again, and we will all be right back here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot create a separate article for my book. Such an article would, deservedly, be deleted (for multiple reasons). Getting back to this deletion issue, there are other publications about the subject of creative problem solving (and there is an annual gathering at a Creative Problem Solving Institute in New York state and they publish materials), but if I had liked those resources then I would not have bothered to write my book. And I've moved on to solving specific problems so I don't have time to research adding those reference. I keep hoping that other subject-matter experts will contribute to this article, but so far most "contributions" have been clearly self-promotional. And no, I did not add my book for the purpose of self-promotion. I added it because Wikipedia requires references, and deletes articles without them. This brings me to my request on the talk page: Please un-do the special revert that you did. You have restored a self-promotional addition that doesn't belong, and you have removed the references I added. Also you have un-done clarifications that any subject-matter expert can tell you is not specific to my book. Other comments here indicate that other resources about creative problem solving exist. The fact that I happen to be the first or only subject-matter expert to contribute to refining this article should not be misinterpreted to mean that my contributions deserve to be undone. Thanks! (For anyone who wonders why subject-matter experts have been abandoning Wikipedia, look no farther; this deletion request combined with a revert of all my contributions to this article have motivated me to spend my time elsewhere.) VoteFair (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I have heavily edited this article simply because I am the main subject-matter expert on this topic who is also a Wikipedia contributor. Regarding this deletion issue, I have written comments on the article's talk page. Please read them. Also I plan to post a clarification as to why I have already reduced my involvement in Wikipedia and why I would reduce my involvement even more if this article is deleted. This topic -- creative problem solving -- is very real, relevant, significant, etc. It so happens that I am an internationally recognized subject-matter expert as a result of my book "The Creative Problem Solver's Toolbox" having been published around the world in 9 languages and I forget how many editions. The recent (today's) edits made -- without discussion -- have reverted the article backward closer to the sorry state (and self-promotional state of someone who really was trying to advertise their brand of "Creative Problem Solving") that it was in when I dramatically improved it. If all that work was in vain, I will give up on this article, although I will not give up on Wikipedia because I am involved in another effort to restore sanity to this wonderful resource. VoteFair (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any problems can be solved through normal editing. Hordes of news, book, and scholarly sources covering this could easily be found. Perhaps a college level textbook could be quoted on the subject. Dream Focus 04:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Creative problem-solving is a notable topic in cognitive psychology. I agree with the last comment that the problems are ones that can be solved by normal editing. If, in its current form, the article reads as if it were an advertisement for a book by a certain author, that does not alter the fact that it may no longer read like this if it has received sensible edits. Nor does it alter the fact that the topic would still retain its importance as a topic in psychology; in cognitive psychology, it is good to know that people are paying attention to the higher mental processes as well as basic processes such as attention, perception or memory. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I'm torn on this one. The topic is notable (see this journal article for example), but the current article is awful, and the reader would be better served by a redirect to problem solving. Suggest stubify if kept. Claritas § 18:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up. Neutral Well-known business concept with plenty of reliable sources. Per DGG, if the clean-upissues can be addressed quickly then fine, otherwise wipe the slate if that's a smarter option. Insomesia (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not clear how Creative problem solving is different from Creativity, nor does either article make the distinction that I see. Maybe a redirect is in order until we can demonstrate the need for a separate article? --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between creativity and creative problem solving was explained in the cps article, although the recent edits are trashing the article, so the difference might not be as clear. I've stopped editing the article because too many people seem to think that just one subject-matter expert (on a topic that has many subject-matter experts) should not edit a Wikipedia article. VoteFair (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepbut revise by someone without COI. If people here are confused about the distinction from other subjects, clarification is clearly in order, In order to decrease the effect of the COI, I'd would suggest that only books by recognized publishers be included. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and rewrite from scratch. I have just noticed this is part of a closed group of promotional articles, including Creative Education Foundation, Productive Thinking Model, Creativity European Association. Creative Problem Solving Process, and possibly others, all of which are so overtly promotional & incapable of normal editing that I have nominated them for speedy deletion as G11, and International Center for Studies in Creativity, which I am about to nominate for AfD. (If any of the speedies are declined, I'll nominate them for AfD also.) Depending on results, I'll probably also send Tim Hurson to AfD. One of the classic signs of promotional writing is the attempt to get multiple articles out of a single topic -- we have a number of such closed circles here from earlier years, and they need to be condensed or demolished. I agree that this article has to some degree been rewritten at least enough to avoid speedy, but I am not convinced it offers much of a distinction from Creativity, except by being one group's non-notable program for developing it. And as the lede admits, it's a special case of Problem solving. The lede tries to distinguish it as " a special form of problem solving in which the solution is independently created rather than learned with assistance", The article in the respectable journal Gifted Child Quarterly that Claritas refers to above does have references to specific literature, but shows it instead as a special method of a group, not something general. The present article is a hodge-podge of the two, in which general matters are supported by some self-published books, not by the actual literature referred to in GCQ. I suppose an article could be created, but unlike my friend Warden, I think we must delete this to save the possibility of a NPOV article on the topic. Even though he's not at all an SPA, I also would, frankly, urge VoteFair to refrain from contributing to it except on the talk pagee DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that the "Creative Problem Solving Process" folks had created a separate article. Previously they had created an article named "Creative Problem Solving" and that was the article I cleaned up (and with someone else's help converted to the present non-capitalized version) to make it method-neutral. As for the overlap with the "creativity" article, that article already covers so much subject matter that it has become rather bloated; and creative problem solving is distinct from that subject. I had hoped that people such as at the "Creative Education Foundation" would help to maintain the creative problem solving article, but they have not done so. I can see why they focus on their own article. Another point: I just received a message from User: Ronz that it would be appropriate (as suggested above) for me to create an article about my (notable) book, but I fail to see the logic in that because if this cps article continues to repeatedly be considered for deletion, then an article about my book would certainly not last. Another factor to consider is that this existing article is linked to the Korean, "AR" (Arabic?), and "FI" (Finnish) versions of Wikipedia, which should be meaningful. (South Korea understands the importance of creative problem solving skills as important in the business world; that edition of my book was quite well received.) So I'll repeat: Keep this article, but invite people who are subject-matter experts to clean it up (although it was clean, and non-promotional, prior to the recent dramatic "undo" action). I won't be editing the article anymore because, as I've said, I now realize that my time would be better spent where my contributions are not misunderstood and dismissed. VoteFair (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was created in 2003‎, and it wasn't until 2007 when user:VoteFair started spamming his stuff in there. Many others have worked on the article at times, often removing his spam and he editing it back in again later. I said a topic ban is in order for him. The article is fine if we just remove all spam from his book. Dream Focus 20:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the article that suggests support for my book. The references to my book simply support well-known principles of creative problem solving. If someone had wanted to switch them to some other book, that would have been fine by me. I added them because earlier threats to delete the article were based on the article having no references. There is no need to ban me from this article because, as I said above, I have stopped editing this article. I had cleaned it up from earlier spam attempts, and it was finally in good shape. Now it is a mess. Sigh. The editing of Wikipedia articles by people who just follow editing rules and don't understand the subject matter is undermining the quality of Wikipedia content. Sigh. VoteFair (talk) 18:21, 16 December 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, Go Phightins! 01:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note the article after various editor's removal of promotionalism for various individual's ideas consists of two sections: a lede paragraph, which has no sources, because it's supposed to be a summary of the material below, and the material below, which first, is all of it sourced to a single unreliable book [1] ( a further reading section that seems to contain material of questionable reliability & non-representative, ) and second, essentially consists of multiple cross references to creativity techniques, a rather problematic page the center for another nest of pages promoting individual ideas, some but not all of which are notable, but are in any case non-representative.. This page is not worth saving; it amounts to a statement of common sense, and needs a proper review of the literature to determine what material should be included. It illustrates what I meant when I said is is unrewritable without essentially starting over. Of course, this could be replacing the text, and if a decent article is written it will need to be almost entirely replaced but the reason for deleting instead is to remove the promotionalism in the history from WP. I wonder if the sourcing principles we use for medical articles should be extended to the social sciences. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. "Creative problem solving" is not recognised as a specific term, hence the original research WP:ESSAY before us. Anything useful could easily be incorporated into problem solving. 1292simon (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To reiterate my comments above, I attempted to cherry-pick through the earlier versions of the article, but it is a mess. I do not think that what would remain after a rewrite would be any more than a sentence or two, and those two sentences would likely benefit other similar articles elsewhere. I also support a subject-ban on User:VoteFair because of this, and because of my belief that the deletion of this article will only serve to push him to other articles to promote his book. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically User: Sue Rangell suggested that I write a separate article on my book, and I pointed out that this does not fit in Wikipedia, and would be deleted if I did do as she suggests. To re-repeat, the references to my book were to comply with earlier requests to add references because the original article did not have any references. I have never tried to promote my books on Wikipedia, and that will not change. (Also I'm too busy with other projects to have time to do much on Wikipedia.) The one significant change is that yet another subject-matter expert has abandoned yet another Wikipedia article. VoteFair (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion Is there consensus for the following change? I suggest reverting to the stable version prior to adding the deletion request -- [[2]] -- but removing all the references to my book, and adding a request that references be added. As I've said before, I will not edit the article because of the perceived conflict of interest. Then the controversial portions of the article for which no one supplies a reference can be removed if no one provides the needed references. As for the deletion issue, a recent contributor here has supplied a link that proves that "creative problem solving" is in the title of thousands of academic publications, whereas the comments saying the subject is not worth an article have not supplied any proof to support that claim. VoteFair (talk) 20:05, 21 December 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.