Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creativism (2nd nomination)

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. Davewild (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creativism

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

When all the original research is removed, there's three authors discussing completely different things, and barely using the term at that. Does not appear in any tertiary sources. Attempts to find academic sources only pulled up yet more authors having to define how they were using the term in a new and unique fashion (indicating that there is no unified concept of Creativism) while primarily focusing on something else entirely. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDICT, still kinda WP:NOR. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a WP:DICDEF. The article is explicit in that the subject is a term and not a concept. In fact it's also explicit in stating it's a term that means different things to different authors. Best case scenario is WP:TNT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article contributes nothing useful, since it is only a collection of scattered attempts to define the word in different ways. Maybe one day a consensus will develop, but there is clearly none yet. The author followed up by posting many equally useless "see also" links to the article. --Blainster (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Creativism is a term used by a few authors in different ways" says it all - there is no single, notable subject here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and that's the version with reduced WP:OR. The original version was "Creativism, not to be confused with creationism, is a term with various meanings, each of which however relates in some way to creative process." It never demonstrated that it was the same creative process, or that the distinct terms were in any way related beyond being homonyms. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we are an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2015 (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.