Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parallel thinking
- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Parallel thinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No evidence of notability. Vague subject matter, limited to one particular author. Tagged for references for almost a year, PROD was removed with remover expecting me to provide the refs. Dmol (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As I said when I removed the prod tag, a Google Books search shows obvious notability, with loads of other authors discussing de Bono's concept. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then put some of them in if you think it is notable, and let the rest of the community decide it is or not.--Dmol (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would love to fully reference every article on a notable subject that is nominated for deletion, but my time is limited so I can only do a few per week. I've done some of the work by pointing to where many sources can be found, so hopefully somebody will show some collaborative spirit and try to build on my work by putting some sources in the article rather than demand that others do so to a deadline. Here's a slightly more focused Google Books search, and there are more sources available from Google Scholar and Google News. If you're worried about this being an "advert", as you tagged it (as if Edward de Bono were so unknown that he needs to spam Wikipedia), then you might be interested in adding some material from a review entitled "That word is ‘bullshit’ and this book is full of it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then put some of them in if you think it is notable, and let the rest of the community decide it is or not.--Dmol (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and fix. The issues do not require a massive re-write. The topic appears to be notable. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and fix. Worthy of work to improve. I will look into Editor:Phil Bridger's suggestion. My favorite de Bono-ism deals with viewing a project from completion rather than beginning. Time allowed, I will improve.--Buster7 (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Adding sources would be great, but showing they exist is sufficient to not delete something. I added a few anyway, but don't see why the nominator couldn't have done so, when the sources clearly exist from the most simple google searchYobMod 09:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with Yobmod, that the nominator should've used Google to check for sources, before nominating it. This article is for a valid subject, no reason not to have it in the encyclopedia. Dream Focus 09:04, 16 May 2009 (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.