Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convergent and divergent production


 * 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. Consensus is to delete this article, discussion of the other two articles mentioned here and how best to cover the topic can happen elsewhere. Davewild (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Convergent and divergent production

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This looks like a "content fork" of the more established pages convergent thinking and divergent thinking. It doesn't help that it is poorly referenced, and the title is wrong anyway, as convergent thinking is not necessarily "productive" OsFish (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete in spirit, unsure about the letter - Per nom, this is a "content fork" of better pages, or more likely a poor rewrite from scratch. I do not see much of value to be kept.
 * This being said, it may be better for organization to have a unique article for convergent thinking and divergent thinking since those notions seem to exist primarily in opposition to each other, or an article that compares them (in the vein of good and evil coexisting with evil). Hence I could see a move and rewrite (from scratch). Is there a guideline for such cases? Tigraan (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've had a more critical look at the convergent thinking page, and it's not very good either. Some of the references just don't match the claims in the text. I agree that convergent and divergent thinking as I understand them are considered frequently as a pair, and that merging the two pages would be a good idea, and then overhauling. Would a joint page be more likely to be better maintained? OsFish (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't solve the "merge" issue. Therefore, the question is about this article. This article could not be searched. It could only be hit by a link. Very well, so what does it illuminate or contextualize? Is the thing itself notable? Well, no: X & Y "production?" Production? The article isn't actually about the title, the title is not notable, and the content is a sketch, at best, of bullet points. Whatever people do about the purported master terms, this article is a delete, and it's not a "redirect," because the keyword isn't a search (as evidenced by its lack of hits). Hithladaeus (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a very good point that should be clarified. "Production" is wrong. Any merged article should be to Convergent and divergent thinking.OsFish (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.