Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCAMPER (brainstorming)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SCAMPER (brainstorming)

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

The article was PRODDED, with the reason given as "None of the sources are WP:RS. This activity was concocted by one guy and has not appeared in any significant, reliable sources. The author of this article has basically reworded those other webpages into this non-encyclopaedic entry." The PROD was unchallenged, and I deleted it. I also thought it was written to promote the technique, and added that as an additional reason in the deletion log. An IP editor has now posted to my talk page to request restoration of the article, so I have restored it and bringing it here so that it can be discussed. The article still reads to me like promotion. The article is not adequately sourced. It is largely written as instructions how to use the technique, contrary to WP:NOTHOWTO, rather than as an encyclopaedic description. There is quite a lot of coverage of the concept, but most if not all of it is from practitioners of the technique, and to what extent it can be regarded as independent coverage is open to question. Certainly a significant proportion of the coverage is promotional, and some of it is in non-reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the same reasons as my original nomination. This is still a cross between a promotional article and a HOWTO. Google News returns zero hits for "scamper brainstorming" without quotes. There are no reliable sources that indicate any degree of notability -- the only mentions are on sites that say something along the lines of "Click here to see how YOU TOO can leverage the fantastic synergy of SCAMPER brainstorming to leverage your solutions!" I could write an article about the latest buzzword used in my organisation; it would look just as professional as this one and be just as much fluff. The IP editor's undelete reasons show absolutely no understanding of WP:NOTABILITY. She wants this article up on Wikipedia so she can translate it for her many Japanese clients? (1) That's not what Wikipedia is for. (2) That's spam. (3) She can find her own webhost and have someone translate it there. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Made up in a day. NOTHOWTO, etc. tedder (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A buzword today, but it may lead to something later. Let's wate and Google it up in about a month's time and see what happens then.--Wipsenade (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2010 (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.