Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destructive creativity


 * 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. Article is original research. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Destructive creativity

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article seems to be based on a mistranslation of foreign language sources actually about creative destruction. None of the sources cited are supporting the definition as a mental process, and most are economic in nature. The article itself seems to be a WP:COAT for popular criticism in general, as originally most recent historical events were explained from a specific bias, from WW2 to the collapse of the USSR.

The article is trying to press a WP:POINT ("Bad things happen because of some mental process"), one that is not true. Sources are cited, but none support the claims in this article. Most of the article is original research. User:Krator (t c) 11:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is help 1) Destructive creativity is not creative destruction, these are different forms of creativity with different behavior and goals. The latter is beneficial for society, while the former is not. Definition of destructive creativity: The drive to create new profitable sources of income that are not beneficial to society can be denoted destructive creativity.


 * 2) Any Creativity is a mental process (this definition is from Wikipedia with sources for creativity), and destructive creativity too. Emotional trauma and mental illness (diagnosed or underdiagnosed), among other known causes of destructive behavior, are professionally described here: and here: and here: Definition of destructive creativity in the form of economic parasitism is here: Definition of destructive creativity in the form of internet crime is here: Definition of destructive creativity in the form of terrorism is here: The article is updated. Your constructive approach is highly appreciated.Steveshelokhonov 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This one takes some time to think through. Initially it just looks like a poorly writen article with some bad grammar and hasty writing. But eventually it simply looks like this article isn't actually about anything at all! A Google search does reveal some uses of the phrase 'Destructive creativity' but the first one relates to parasitology... Others seem to relate either to business or to international relations, but none have any obvious relevance to this article. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  11:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is help: Destructive creativity in the form of economic parasitism is not "related to parasitology", this becomes clear when the source is actually read through. There you can see Definition of destructive creativity: "The drive to create new profitable sources of income that are not beneficial to society can be denoted destructive creativity."< Thank you for your attention.Steveshelokhonov 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The definition gives an external reference, supposedly a scientific paper about the subject matter, but the definition could not be found there, which means it's a misleading reference. Add to that the nonsensical sentence structure and incomprehensible wording. The rest of the article rambles on and on about supposed examples in history while providing no relation whatsoever to the definition. --Karlbrezner 12:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is help: Definition is there: "The drive to create new profitable sources of income that are not beneficial to society can be denoted destructive creativity." Steveshelokhonov 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The paper couches WP:BOLLOCKS behind an obfuscatory haze of rambling sentences with little, if any, logical connection.  Supporting examples are pulled together from a variety of subjects and disciplines with no explanation of how they relate.  The overall effect reads like a poorly constructed high school or college term paper that never quite decides what its central theme is. --Nonstopdrivel 12:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is help: All sources relate to various forms and potential causes of destructive creativity which is almost ubiquitous. The article is updated. Thank you for the effort to tolerate my handicap in English.Steveshelokhonov 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I tried to read the whole thing, and have little idea what it was all about; trying to rephrase it in plain English, about all I can get out of it was that crime comes from bad thoughts.  - Smerdis of Tlön 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Bad thoughts" are not in this article. Destructive creativity is; its several forms are described with definitions from professional sources. The article is being updated. Thank you for reading the earlier draft.Steveshelokhonov 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, I'm glad that you got that out of this, because all I got when reading this article a couple of days ago was the sense that it was some postmodernist rubbish on a different... level, to what I understand. Support deletion as per nom.  Lankiveil 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC).
 * The article is updated. Thank you for reading the earlier draft.Steveshelokhonov 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - per all of the above. Eddie  22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is being updated. Thank you for reading the earlier draft.Steveshelokhonov 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:COAT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:COAT implies a "tangentially related bias subject"; I'm struggling to identify this. Please, may I ask what it may be? Jlittlenz 08:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is being updated. Thank you for reading the earlier draft.Steveshelokhonov 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Can't we just remove stuff that does not relate to the mental process? And make this article a stub? Or we could merge it with the economics article Creative_destruction? I mean its a psychological theory, so we should keep atleast as a medical article? I believe there are 4 days remaining before this Afd closes, so can someone respond to my suggestions? --Savedthat 04:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Removing everything not related to the mental process would leave an empty article. None of the citations are related to the 'mental process'. Whether that process even exists or not is not found in any of the references. --User:Krator (t c) 10:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Creativity is a mental process (see Wikipedia), as well as destructive creativity, in which case mental process is in disorder (see mental illness and all five DSM-IV Sourcebooks). This definition may be replaced with any of the other four, the best one is from University of Oslo, titled "Destructive Creativity" about Economic parasitism, it is not "related to parasitology" (thanks for the laughs).

The drive to create new profitable sources of income that are not beneficial to society can be denoted destructive creativity. Other sources give descriptions of destructive creativity in Terrorism, in Crime, in Software engineering, where destructive creativity in internet crime is defined as “trying to brake, trying to falsify, being nasty”. One source is focused on "Destroyers vs Builders" struggle. Psychiatric underpinnings of behaviors causing crime, destruction of property, attacks on people, self-destruction, vandalism and other crime) are described in very carefully worded medical terms on three thousand pages of DSM-IV Sourcebooks on destructive behavior of diagnosed people with mental disorders, who, sadly, engage in destructive creativity by committing various crimes. Undiagnosed and untreated people may still have signs of intermittent destructive behavior.

Anyway, removing anything in the article is ok with me. Real-life software engineers, economists, criminalists, lawyers, doctors and other people, mamas and papas, are still dealing with destructive creativity every day. The definition of destructive creativity for software engineers: braking, falsifying, and being nasty, is similar to professional instructions for law enforcement and forensic psychiatrists who are dealing with destructive behavior in society. Even deleted from virtual space it still remains in human minds and exists in big real world. Thanks for efforts of tolerance to my funny English. This experience is highly interesting. Helping people see pieces of the elephant. Sincerely, Steveshelokhonov 08:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is being updated. Thank you for reading the earlier draft.Steveshelokhonov 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep seems to be a reasonably widespread term in social sciences, 74 references on Google Scholar in different publications and by different authors Alex Bakharev 01:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * None of these references are about the topic as described in the article. Most of the references to the term "destructive creativity" are either part of an argument or rhetoric. It does sound nice. --User:Krator (t c) 19:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, only three of these references even use the actual term, in the other cases I examined the term was part of a sentence that just happened to contain that string, or alternately was referring to some other process entirely. For instance, the article on the teaching of music was apparently using the term to refer to a process similar to deconstruction in literature; taking an existing work, breaking it down, and reconstructing it into another form. This is utterly unrelated to the sort of concept being talked about here. Maury 14:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hard to say. The article appears to contain some elements of original research, but it is reasonably well sourced. When in doubt, I prefer to keep the article. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete here and move definition only to Wiktionary I agree with many of the delete points made above, this article reads like a personal report on the term. Stripped down to just a definition the article would be inappropriate here anyway. Anynobody 01:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: appears to me to be a collection of disparate topics, collected solely because they have a similar name. However, the similar names appear to be well covered in articles on those topics. This article seems to add nothing of substance, and I believe does much to confuse the terminology - it did for me anyway! Maury 14:48, 22 June 2007 (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.