Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thinking outside the box

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 Speedy kept after massive rewrite - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page that I just get a strong feeling of "this should be deleted" and "this is unencyclopedic", and I can't explain why. Please indulge the lack of a good rationale. Stifle (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a major psychological concept. The article could definitely be improved though. -newkai | talk | contribs 01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Improve Agree with Newkai. Keep and improve the article. --Tuspm ^{(C | @)} 01:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, improve. Quite a big psychological concept. It's also used by Taco Bell as a slogan. TrackerTV 01:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be "Think outside the bun." --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A variant also makes the origin notable. -TrackerTV 03:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Improve per Newkai and TrackerTV. Kalani ^[talk] 01:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I have heard this phrase used often enough, so I think it fits notability. Q0 02:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move to Wiktionary. It's just a jargon definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. TheronJ 02:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that Smerdis has rewritten. Good job. TheronJ 15:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TheronJ as dicdef, and not a good one. It's callled ""creativity", methinks, and the fact that I may have heard it used doesn't lend itself to meeting WP:NOT. Tychocat 06:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary of English idiomatic expressions, nor a venue for the publication of random thoughts on the catchphrases of motivational speakers. Byrgenwulf 09:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. We have articles on a number of idioms (although only a fraction of those listed in List of idioms in the English language). Compare this article with apples and oranges, beating a dead horse, and straw that broke the camel's back, just to name a few. The first is a great article, and probably a good goal for what this one could be. I don't want to imply that all of the idioms on the list deserve articles. On the contrary, there should probably be some rule of thumb for what constitutes a phrase that deserves an article. Just for comparison, "Thinking outside the box" and "Apples and oranges" each get about 2M Googles each, and the other two of my examples get about 200k each. Personally, I think this article easily meets the criteria for a notable saying, about which a lot could probably be said. -- Plutor 12:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Plutor --Mitaphane _talk 12:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and Improve - Highly notable catchphrase. A number of companies use it or a modified version of it as a slogan, and used amongst corps specializing in training as part of their advertising. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 13:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, without prejudice to re-creation. At least when I looked at it, the page text consisted of an unsourced Reader's Digest style anecdote. Agree with all above that the catchphrase and slogan is highly notable and could support an article. Not certain that the text I read would be all that helpful for someone who wanted to write a proper one. Smerdis of Tlön 14:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have endeavoured to improve the article. There at least seems to be a consensus about the origin of the phrase. I have also embellished it with brilliant illustrations. Smerdis of Tlön 15:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Byrgenwulf and Smerdis of Tlön, again without prejudice against re-creation. A good article on this topic could certainly exist, detailing the origin of the phrase and its documentable history. However, said hypothetical article is so far removed from this one that "cleanup" translates to "complete overhaul". Anville 14:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep much-improved rewrite. Anville 18:02, 2 August 2006 (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.