Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Basadur Creative Problem Solving Profile

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Basadur Creative Problem Solving Profile

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

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

The article is essentially a lengthy essay about a commercially offered [1] method of measuring an employee's approach to creativity. (The article emphatically denies that it's a personality test, though I didn't really catch what was the difference.) No third-party references - sourced solely to research papers by the author and his collaborators. Borderline promotional. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding Marino (Min) Sidney Basadur to this nomination. (It's an article about the creator of this profile, also with no third-party references.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Basadur Creative Problem Solving Profile as clearly failing GNG. No comment on Basadur himself, for which there might be a better claim to notability but I haven't looked for sources. Certainly the page as it stands now isn't acceptable -- lacking secondary sources, reads like a CV. --Rhododendrites (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2013 (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.