Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadruple and quintuple innovation helix (Q2IH) framework

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. Given the "keep" !vote by the nom, I don't see any reason to draw this out any longer, even though I just relisted this. Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quadruple and quintuple innovation helix (Q2IH) framework

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Basically this is WP:SYNTH/WP:OR sourced to primary research published in predatory/vanity venues (IGI Global). No notability. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping|Headbomb}} Hi, Headbomb! Firstly, a search on the Elsevier SCOPUS academic database reveals 277 documents for the search ITLE-ABS-KEY ( "Quadruple helix" OR "Quintuple helix" ). See this search if you have access: https://www.scopus.com/results/results.uri?numberOfFields=0&src=s&clickedLink=&edit=&editSaveSearch=&origin=searchbasic&authorTab=&affiliationTab=&advancedTab=&scint=1&menu=search&tablin=&searchterm1=%22Quadruple+helix%22+OR+%22Quintuple+helix%22&field1=TITLE_ABS_KEY&dateType=Publication_Date_Type&yearFrom=Before+1960&yearTo=Present&loadDate=7&documenttype=All&accessTypes=All&resetFormLink=&st1=%22Quadruple+helix%22+OR+%22Quintuple+helix%22&st2=&sot=b&sdt=b&sl=53&s=TITLE-ABS-KEY%28%22Quadruple+helix%22+OR+%22Quintuple+helix%22%29&sid=483268ab94c1122d85ab291ff873997a&searchId=483268ab94c1122d85ab291ff873997a&txGid=5db06fc0cd7ebb18fc5cb75297bc4077&sort=plf-f&originationType=b&rr=. If you do not have access, I can upload a screencap if you want. The search demonstrates that extensions of helical theory are notable, within the field of innovation economics. Secondly, I made sure that all articles sourced for the entry were from journals in the SCOPUS database, maintained by Elsevier, which weeds out predatory journals. SCOPUS does consider some IGI Global journals to be predatory, thus does not include them, but it does not consider all to be predatory. The journals cited in the Wikipedia article have not been classified as predatory within the SCOPUS database. If you can cite a better authority than SCOPUS or are concerned about a specific journal, please tell me. I can substitute it with citations from multiple book chapters on the subject, published by reputable publishers, e.g., by Springer or Palgrave Macmillan. See this Google Books search: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&ei=jj89XrXwGsTorQGEobyoCg&q=%22Quintuple+helix%22+Carayannis&oq=%22Quintuple+helix%22+Carayannis&gs_l=psy-ab.3...23641.31615.0.31944.13.11.0.0.0.0.458.1316.4-3.3.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..10.0.0....0.l_vNCB6gGPU I look forwards to hearing from you. Peace Johncdraper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncdraper (talk • contribs) 11:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping|Headbomb}} Dear Headbomb, I just ran the revised page as of sig. datestamp in my sandbox. I am getting no Wikipedia predatory journal warning. This may have been a false positive or a single article, which is now resolved. Please rerun the page at your end to confirm this issue is now resolved. Johncdraper (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: Dear Headbomb, I believe I have resolved the main issues with this page. I may be wrong; please advise. The main outstanding issue is then the relationship between this page and the Triple helix model of innovation page. What I would like to do is rewrite the Triple helix model of innovation page to cut out the separate Quadruple helix and Quintuple helix subsections, briefly describe these in an 'Extensions of triple helix model of innovation' section and then link in that section to the Quadruple and quintuple innovation helix (Q2IH) framework as a standalone page. Peace, Johncdraper (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as copyvio and per WP:TNT. XOR'easter (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping|XOR'easter}} Dear XOR'easter, Please indicate here one or more copyright violations. Peace Johncdraper

The violations are indicated by highlighting in the automatic report. XOR'easter (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping|XOR'easter}} Dear XOR'easter, The apparent violations are sourced from an Open Access article under a Creative Commons 2.0 International License from (https://innovation-entrepreneurship.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2192-5372-1-2). Full rights and permissions statement associated with the article follows:

"Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited."

Please advise if this is not acceptable. Johncdraper (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have done a major teardown and rewrite, to change the format from essay to encyclopedia entry. I see no predatory journal listed (please specify) or copyright violations (please specify instances) or anything that might justify WP:TNT. Any further comments gratefully received. Peace, Johncdraper —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's still material copied from at least one document not licensed as OA. XOR'easter (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*{{ping|XOR'easter}} Dear XOR'easter, No, the report postdates the Wikipedia page and is either copying from the same OA sources or from the Wikipedia page. I suspect the latter. Peace, Johncdraper (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*{{ping|XOR'easter}} Dear XOR'easter, I have now checked this. The report you cite postdates the page and is a straight copy-paste from the Wikipedia page. The pdf Earwig's cites is a pre-release report on an EU server, as it in fact states: "Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including EACEA and Commission services and projects reviewers". Please note Earwig's notice: "Be aware that other websites can copy from Wikipedia, so check the results carefully, especially for older or well-developed articles."Johncdraper (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of removal of essay-like template As part of the rehabilitation of the entry, I propose removing the essay-like template within 72 hours of this notice. If you have a problem with this, please advise, with specific criticisms. The entry is now quite short, making specific criticisms of phrases, sentences, and passages viable. Johncdraper (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To pick an example at random: This ‘fourth helix associates with art, creative industries, culture, lifestyles, media, and values — what does that mean?? Why are any of these things called "helices"? The geometry can't matter too much, because the figure draws them as circles. Neither this article nor any of those that it nominally builds upon actually make the subject matter clear. XOR'easter (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping|XOR'easter}} I believe I have fixed the specific example you gave. I have a Doctor of Public Administration, and the definitions are clear to me as a social scientist. I can identify myself to you if your wish. I will work on the definitions, using the Triple helix model of innovation page as a guide. However, if you think the Triple helix model of innovation or the Knowledge society pages are unclear, please flag them with a relevant template, perhaps in the same way as the Knowledge economy page. Peace, Johncdraper (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
{{ping|XOR'easter}} Dear XOR'easter, You have convinced me of the need to edit some related pages. I will be working on the Mode 2 page today and tomorrow. Please advise if you find any further lack of clarity on this page, then if you have time, the Mode 2 page next week. Peace, Johncdraper (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
{{ping|XOR'easter}} Dear XOR'easter, i have completely rewritten the Mode 2 page as a Knowledge Production Modes page, as was in fact requested on its Talk page. I also deleted the in-line citations template for the same page. Then, I rewrote sections of the Triple helix model of innovation page, adding open-source illustrative diagrams. I have also heavily rewritten the Quadruple and quintuple innovation helix (Q2IH) framework page. Any further requests for clarification would be gratefully received. Peace, Johncdraper (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per the above notice, I have removed the essay-like template. I see no obvious rhetorical signs of personal feelings, original argument, etc. Johncdraper (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the coi template has been added. I see no problem with that and would welcome an administrator's review at this stage. Johncdraper (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to begin addressing the coi notice, I have added a new 'Criticism of the concept' section, with two criticisms so far included. Peace, Johncdraper (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot address the COI notice because you are the one having the COI and heavily referencing your own work, which again, is often published through IGI Global. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the author of any of the references on this page. I have just sent you an email identifying myself to you. Also, I am not picking up a single mention of IGI on the page. Please help out. Johncdraper (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that you are the uploader of File:Evolution_of_the_Models_of_Knowledge_Creation_in_the_Quintuple_Helix.jpg, which you say is your own work, and credit it to Elias G. Carayannis (and many many others in [[1]]). As for IGI, there are 4 distinct references that are IGI Global publications (search for 10.4018 will find them). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote the page, did not understand the situation with copyright and images, i.e., I did not realize they were all open source. I asked the original copyright owner if I could upload the pages in his name. He gave me written permission at the time. I am going to fix that now at Wikimedia (they are all in a Creative Commons 4.0 License). I will also look at the IGI issue. Peace, Johncdraper (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now gone over to Wikimedia Commons and fixed all the copyright attributions for the images on this page, i.e., not own original diagrams but licensed under Creative Commons licenses. I have also fixed the problem where I impersonated the copyright holder on Wikimedia after he have me permission to upload the files. D'oh! BTW, following my email self-identifying, and other email header asking original copyright holder for [permission to use images, if you need any proof that I am John C. Draper, and not in fact Elias G. Carayannis, please ask. More than happy to Skype, etc. Working on the IGI issue next. Peace, Johncdraper (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now checked and deleted all of the IGI references.Johncdraper (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It looks like the copyvio concerns have been addressed, but I have not yet had time to investigate and evaluate further. XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to remove coi template II see no problem with the coi if it is there because I created and have edited most of this page. I welcome independent review of the page. However, if the coi is there because I am being confused with Elias G. Carayannis, I do object. I identify as myself on Wikipedia, i.e., this person: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3626-533X, and this is a point of principle for me. I believe I have adequately explained the ID mixup on Wikimedia. So, I propose removal of the template once user Headbomb is satisfied as to my real-life ID e.g., by providing temporary access to personal Facebook and email accounts, if that is the main reason for the COI. Peace, Johncdraper (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion up till now belongs for a large part on the talk page of the article, as it is concerned with improving the article. Meanwhile, there has been precious little discussion on the question whether this meets our inclusion criteria and apart from the nom, there are no !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept is still generally meaningless gobbledygook, as is many things from social sciences, but notability does seem established and my personal opinion about the subject matter is irrelevant here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the consensus is to keep, I will revise the Triple helix model of innovation page accordingly. Johncdraper (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2020 (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.