Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creanovatology


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Creanovatology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Newly created/coined as well as not notable discipline and portmanteau. Found no significant coverage to show meets WP:GNG. Sourced by webpage connected with the subject. Previously deleted as WP:CSD. Was recreated with a stub that G11 would not wrap around. PRODed instead. G11 was declined on this iteration when it was a bare-bone stub. DePRODed, so here we are. Content now moving back in G11 direction. Looks like another rehash of some sort of motivational speech involving creativity and innovation. Taken at it's best, it's original research. Looks speediable to me, but I can't be objective right now. Bringing to AfD in case I have it all wrong, but I found no significant coverage Dloh cierekim  22:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)  Dloh  cierekim  22:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR and WP:NEO. Neologism coined by the inventor, with no significant coverage in secondary sources. Google turned up many results in Iranian which appeared to be directory sites, not useful for WP:V. Ivanvector (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MEDRS and WP:COI. There are no reliable sources to back up the extraordinary claims in the article, and the article author appears to have a close, self-promotional relationship to the article subject, based on contribution history. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - no Ghits worth counting - including scholar and books. Neoligism that hasn't spread to the web.  Not notable.  Neonchameleon (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * comment is "counting ghits" once again a measure of notability? I thought it discredited long ago. You might want to reconsider your rationale. Dloh cierekim  15:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Depends what you are trying to do with it. Trying to prove non-notability is hard as is any attempt to prove a negative - all you can really do is show that things aren't there. I fully agree that a lot of ghits doesn't make things notable.  But when Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books are finding nothing useful about a neoligism or something else contemporary it's a good indication the expected sources aren't there.  Neonchameleon (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What was discredited was using lack of g-hits as evidence of lack of notability. One single source could contain of significant, verifiable coverage. Don't do much AfD anymore, but I'm intrigued after having been shot down on using this rationale in the past. Dloh  cierekim  16:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - spammy promotion of a neologism. Lady  of  Shalott  18:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced WP:NEO. --McGeddon (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Why deletion ?!! Creanovatology = Creatology = Innovation Science = Studies on Creativity and Innovation . This scientific issue is well known and very important .Deletion is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuzesh (talk • contribs) 11:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)  — Amuzesh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Welcome Amuzesh! I and the commenters above have searched and have found no evidence that this concept is well known among scientists. For inclusion in Wikipedia, it's required that an independent source can verify that claim, in this case probably a write-up in a scientific journal, and definitely something not written by Dr. Hashemi. Please see our guide to reliable sources, in particular the section on scholarly works. If you can provide a good source that backs up your claim and meets our guidelines, that will go a long way towards saving the article. Ivanvector (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2013 (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.