Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dissolve 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   delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to the article on the book. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Dissolve the box

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is no topic here. This page is a collection of various bits and pieces cobbled together in violation of WP:SYNTH. The instances of "dissolve" are not significantly different in meaning and usage from Thinking outside the box. The various examples do not relate to each other and do not form a separate topic. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - It is basically a continuation of a précis of the book Next What's In, which already has an article. Sionk (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not dissimilar to problems I found in a related article I've submitted for AFD (see also Articles for deletion/Intent Leadership). -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the article - Let's understand how it is different from Thinking Outside the Box as this will clear many doubts. It is a shift from being the mind or body to the much finer "pure consciousness" which gives rise to the mind or body. If you ask a thief to think Outside the box what will he do? Probabbly he will steal better because he still responds from the mental image of being a thief. In other words the deeper boxes which we pick up as we grow like our fear, ego, religion, education, character, attitude, experience etc still pour into our decisions infecting them. When we think Outside the box we are only thinking outside some of the superficial boxes ( usually the professional box). Just like the thief, individuals and organizations pick up different boxes and till they dissolve the boxes and know their real self ( self realization) they keep responding from their mental images only. Some of the boxes we have blown out of proportion is money, ego, insecurity, hidden fear etc. We dissolve our boxes only when we realize we are "pure consciousness" which has actually taken the form of mind and body. When we "simply be" or practice "silence-acceptance" it can be proved that we are then a "silent witnessing presence" or consciousness and this is a better frequency to lead, manage,create, change and act. Let's be very open and discuss this more in case the idea is not communicated clearly because it is a broad idea and needs complete discussion. The article on Dissolve the box is not the same as Next What's In. It is correct that "Next What's In" (the book) discusses this idea but this concept has a lot more to offer. It is just the beginning (the root) and from it is derived different management concepts (branches) like "Intent Leadership", "Mental Flatteners" etc. which initself is very huge and which is much finer and deeper than Thought leadership and Physical Flatteners etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 02:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Vartmaan, the question is not whether or not "dissolving the box" is or isn't an interesting idea. I certainly agree that it's intriguing to think about. The question is, "is this article  described as notable in reliable sources to be included within Wikipedia?" Perhaps there is a way that we can include some of this content within the article Next What's In? Part of the trouble also comes from the fact that the idea "Dissolve the box" is original research is also difficult — it is hard to find independent articles that reference the idea because it is only made by one person or found in the book. --Pusillanimous 02:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge: I suggest we merge Intent Leadership and Dissolve the box into the article on the book Next What's In. The former two articles are non-notable and original theories and could be included in a "Concepts" subsection of the article in a slimmed-down form. How does that sound? --Pusillanimous 02:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Brief abstracts on these two concepts probably couldn't hurt - in fact, it would likely give the book more context. Perhaps, given these two, a merge and redirect is a more appropriate way to deal with these.  I'll wait for other thoughts before I change my !vote. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merging to Next What's In seems to be suitable, with this article made into a redirect. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Discuss:It's great to have this discussion and i am sure many more editors will share their inputs. I specially thank SineBot, Pusillanimous, Dennis The Tiger and of course Binksternet for their continuous effort to improve wikipedia. Just to share few more inputs on "Dissolve the box" for more clarity and an informed decision: The sources given for the article on "Dissolve the box" and "Intent Leadership" are all very reliable and verifiable. It is being discussed at the IIMs and IITs - the premier institutions of the world and many organizations are now showing interest in these ideas independently. One of the IIM is converting "dissolve the box" into into a 30 hour course material with 3 credit points and so is the case wih Intent Leadership. Industry leaders (Chief Innovative Officer, Chief Managing Directors, Vice Presidents etc.) from different parts of the world have been positively discussing it in Harvard Blogs and have even given positive comments via emails (which can be shared in the public domain). National and International press, electronic and television like ET Now, Business Today, Businessworld etc. have found enough food for thought to move beyond "Thinking Outside the Box" and "Thought Leadership" as inclusive, intelligent and sustainable growth is still missing. Students doing Professional Degrees like MBA, Engineering etc. have been looking at these articles at Wiki for reliable information rather than reading the book :). This guided us to participate in Wikipedia. Dissolve the box and Intent Leadership have outgrown "Next What's In" and i hope through our discussions you all will appreciate that it deserves its place in wikipedia as independent articles. Dissolve the box is a way of life (all aspects) and Intent Leadership is focussed to Leadership only. In case more clarification is required we will be happy to provide them. Vartmaan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 02:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is this "we" you're talking about? Drmies (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am hearing nothing but promotional blather. This page is for discussing how the topic might meet WP:GNG requirements and, if not, what should be done with it. There is no need to try and "sell" the topic to us here. We are not here to think outside of thinking outside the box, we are here specifically to discover whether Wikipedia's "box" should contain this material. We are here to find out if it should be included inside the box. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your reply. My point is certinly not to sell the idea to you'll. Like you'll i respect wiki rules, the wiki community and its objective. I simply tried to answer one point which said "it is made by one person only". What i am trying to communicate is that this idea is not just limited to a few now. I believe it is in line with the WP:GNG requirements. Looking forward to inputs from you'll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 04:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in the sources that says "dissolve the box" is a widely used term with any kind of notability beyond the fact that it is used in one self-help book designed to sell to businesspeople. Wikipedia is the skeptic here; you are the one who must demonstrate that the term is well known. Binksternet (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The term "well known" is certainly not mentioned specifically. However, a stronger verifiable evidence is given in the IIPM link where it is shown Sharma introducing the concept and practical implication to many students in an auditorium and fortunately the presentation can also be seen in the photograph. There are 3 photographs supporting it with a complete news. We also have emails from CMD of Air India, Director - IIM, VP - Essar, VP - ICICI Prudential, VP - Lupin Pharma etc. which can be shared to support (I hope these are reliable if it is in the official capacity). We also have a video clipping from a very respectable business news channel "ET Now" where it is shown Sharma speaking at an International conference at IIT with international dignitories on Dissolve the Box and Intent Leadership. Even the Harvard link and the Management Exchange link shows people participating in different parts of the world. I firmly believe it is in line with the WP:GNG requirements. Hope it convinces Wikipedia and its editors. Vartmaan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.16.110 (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are arguments in favor of the book and in favor of Sharma. Such sources do not help to establish the phrase "dissolve the box" as its own notable term. You need a business jargon guide to list it, or a corporate dictionary to explain it, or a linguist to discuss it. Binksternet (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP:GNG "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]". Many references that we have given have "significant coverage" on Dissolve the box as per the definition of significant coverage given in WP:GNG. The examples given in these references explain dissolve the box concept and not the author or the book though there is "significant coverage" for the author and the book too. Let's follow the spirit of this guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 06:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge—I've been watching this, and Intent Leadership for quite a while, unsure what to do with it. The terms both get minor press, but always in the context of the book or an interview with the author, never by themselves.  Since Articles for deletion/Intent Leadership has been posted, the path here has become clear to me... Merge both articles into the article on the book they came from: Next What's In. This same comment will be copied over to  Articles for deletion/Intent Leadership.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 14:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG guidelines - When "Dissolve the box" has been covered by majority of the National and some International media by giving detailed examples (of the thief)and explaining how it is different from Thinking Outside the box along with its implications in Leadership, innovation, organization etc. it can certinly not be termed a "minor press". Even the main headings and the captions of many of the article published, talk of Dissolve the box. In fact, if we go through the articles published by the media we will realise it is the soul of the articles or the high point of the articles. As per the WP:GNG guidelines "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Dissolve the box has certainly not been a "trivial mention" but much-much more. It is the soul of the articles. Most of the articles are more than 500 words and approximately 50% of the artcles have covered Dissolve the box and matter related to it spread all accross the articles (introduction, body and conclusion). This is certainly not trivial considering the weightage of Dissolve the box in the articles published on its own and if we see them in the context of the media in which it is covered (in terms of source, circulation, reach, quality, objectivity, reliability etc.) it is certainly not minor press. Thus, we should allow this article to remain as per the WP:GNG guidelines. The overall spirit of wikipedia and its guidelines which i understand is to remain the encyclopedia or the infolog which is objective, reliable and verifiable for the benefit of the visitors all accross the web. Let's follow the spirit. Vartmaan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 03:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing: it is not covered "by majority of the National and some International media". Drmies (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So just for fun I checked each reference in this article. Since the article doesn't use any inline citations, it's impossible to tell what each source is supposed to be supporting, so I read every word of each reference.  Here is an objective view of the sources:
 * Covers the term within the scope of a book review. Lends notability to the book, not the term.
 * Trivial mention
 * Routine coverage of book - very short book review.
 * Significant book review - an excellent source for a Wikipedia article on the book, but the term "Dissolve the box" gets minor coverage within the overall book review.
 * Book review which gives significant coverage to "Dissolve the box". This is the first real assertion of notability for the term.
 * Significant book review - an excellent source for a Wikipedia article on the book, but the term "Dissolve the box" gets minor coverage within the overall book review.
 * WP:ROUTINE coverage of a lecture. Not a significant indicator of notability for anyone involved.
 * "Dissolve the box" is never even mentioned in this article. Unsure why this is included as a reference.
 * Blog post by the book's author. Presumed not to be editorially reviewed, so therefore not a reliable source.
 * This particular neologism just doesn't have enough coverage, independent of reviews for the book in which it was coined, to support a stand-alone Wikipedia article at this time. The proper place for coverage of this term is within the article on the book.  When this term gets common usage, outside the context of the book then it would be appropriate for a standalone Wikipedia article.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 14:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * References changed as per the study done by Livitup : Thanks a lot Livitup for your detailed study. Here are the clarifications for the same. Firstly, as per the WP:GNG guidelines "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". So even if Next What's In is the main topic of the source material in many references "Dissolve the box" has got significant coverage in 5 reliable and verifiable references provided earlier. Secondly, the 8th point where you mention "dissolve the box has not even been mentioned" Dan Burrier the Chief Innovation Officer of Ogilvy and Mather( Americas) has himself appreciated the idea "Dissolve the box" when it was discussed with him (You can see it for yourself in the discussions given below in that article between Santosh and Dan Burrier along with teh others. Thirdly, you have used "trivial" for ref. 2 and "minor" for refrerence 4 and 6. Further you have assessed Ref. 5 as real assertion of the notability of the term "Dissolve the Box". As per the WP:GNG guidelines "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Therefore, Ref. 4 and Ref. 6 qualifies as valid refrences for a independent article as it is "more than trivial coverage" and therefore "significant coverage" as per WP:GNG  though it may not be the main topic. There is no concept of minor coverage and anything that is more than trivial coverage is "significant coverage" as per this guideline. Finally, even though Ref. 1 and Ref. 3 qualify as valid references as per WP:GNG guidelines, i have removed it (we have now kept 3 strong references for this article) just to quash slightest of confusion (if it still persists) to conclude that the article "Dissolve the box" is accepted as an independent article. Even the minor coverage mentioned by you is actually significant as the entire concept on Dissolve the box was not put together (by thouse editors)at the same place but scattered in in different parts all throughout the article like the introduction, body and conclusion . Dissolve the box is not just a trivial mention but much more as examples and the difference between Thinking outside the box is clearly brought out in those articles too and its applicability in leadership, innovation etc. is also shown. I think and hope that the wiki editors are satisfied with my continuous effort to clear their doubt. All the 3 references provided now with this article is highly reliable and verifiable with significant coverage as per the WP:GNG guidelines. Thanks, Vartmaan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 03:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, this is still a horribly promotional article selling a muzzy concept that is not at all notable away from its presence inside one notable book. When this article is made into a redirect to the book article, and the contents are merged, I will push for a large scale diminution of the description of the concept. This is exactly what Wikipedia is not to be used for: promotion of new ideas. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Dissolve the box : Editors are of the view that the references talks about the book and the author. Santosh Sharma: Editors are of the view that the references talks of the book and the idea. Next What's In : Editors are of the view that Next What's In is non notable and The Hindu reference (which was established in 1880 with 4.1 million readers as unreliable) Intent Leadership: Like Dissolve the box article editors are of the view it talks of the book or the author. This does not reflect an objective assessment. Request you'll to reconsider your stand and be fair to arrive at a conclusion. Once we decide the articles to remain in wikipedia i can rework on the article for the encyclopedic content though i have been mentioning the content in the articles is simply quoted from the reliable references and not mine. Thanks "User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan]] (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.39.108 (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. What Binksternet said. This is nothing but promotion of a non-notable concept--poorly disguised and poorly written. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Follow WP:GNG guidelines: The point raised is "non notability" of the concept. The reference of WP:GNG guidelines and reasons of Significant coverage was provided earlier. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". So even if "Next What's In" is the main topic of the source material in many references "Dissolve the box" has got significant coverage in 5 reliable and verifiable references provided earlier. However, based on the Livitup study we have kept 3 references only to remove all confusions. The deletion of the artcile will not be in the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines. I would request you'll to follow the "objective definition of notable" as per wikipedia guidelines and not let individual judgement defeat the spirit.  If the concept is explained clearly by giving examples, its advantages over the thinking outside the box is brought out or its relevance in leadership, innovation and management is explained can this be termed as "trivial coverage"? Is it against the WP:GNG guidelines? Are the references unreliable or nonverifiable? Vartmaan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 07:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not properly covered, simple as that. Please start signing your messages, and please indent and comment according to conventions, so it's clear who is responding to what. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The questions i have raised is very objective but the answer provided is again subjective. My simple point is "Is the article following the WP:GNG guidelines? Yes or No. If the answer is "No" then what do we mean by "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Livitup has done the homework by going through all the 10 references and he has answered this question very objectively where he found the first reference as ":#Book review which gives significant coverage to "Dissolve the box". This is the first real assertion of notability for the term." He also found the second and the third ref as ":#Significant book review - an excellent source for a Wikipedia article on the book, but the term "Dissolve the box" gets minor coverage within the overall book review." To this, the point raised by me was since Livitup has himself differentiated between "trivial" and "minor coverage" and as per the WP:GNG guidelines "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" so this article is a significant coverage as it is much more than a trivial mention. Once the notability of the article is decided i can always improve the article further and all the concerns can be addressed so that the spirit of wikipedia is upheld. Thank you.Vartmaan (talk  —Preceding undated comment added 01:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Based on the guidelines, the answer is "no". The subject of the article article needs to stand up by itself, independent of the book, in order to warrant inclusion.  I covered this in your talk page. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 02:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then what do you mean by "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Thank you. "User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan]] (talk  —Preceding undated comment added 03:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC).
 * As stated, I covered this on your talk page. To sum it up, though, this must stand on its own, independent of the book.  That's pretty much all there is to it. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 02:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG guidelines: It is very clearly written "it need not be the main topic of the source material". The heading of the articles also which is usually the soul or the high point of the article hints at the box factor. The headings given in the article are "Born free, boxed In", "The Way Out", "Get beyond thought traps" aren't they clearly hinting at the soul of the article? And isn't the explaination of Dissolve the box concept actually explaining and taking the heading forward? Do you still believe it is not significant coverage? Kindly reconsider your stand and be fair. You are an editor you know much better what is the importance of the heading of any article. Thank you "User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan]] (talk
 * No, the context is always about the book or the author. The idea of "dissolve the box" is never discussed in detail outside of this context. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have written 4 articles based on the reliable references we have got - Santosh Sharma, Next What's In, Dissolve the box and Intent Leadership. The comments i have got from the editors are as follows
 * Comment for Vartmaan - Forgive me, as this will sound rude, but it's time to be blunt. The long and short of this is simple: you need to prove to us that this article meets our general notability guidelines, which, as you have repeatedly pointed out WP:GNG, you should be very familiar with by now.  Your repeated posts in here are not helping your case.  What will help is if you can alter the article in such a way to demonstrate notability of this independently of the book.  The end.  In short: don't sell us on why it's notable when it's not, prove that it's notable independently of the publication.  That, alone, will change our minds. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 02:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment for Dennis The Tiger- Dennis you are doing your job as an editor and therefore there's nothing to be forgiven, in fact i am happy that you have been continuously working to improve wikipedia. What i am concerned about is what i have mentioned in the above earlier comment where the editors are not consistent and objective. For the idea, they say the reference talk of the book and the author, for Sharma they say the references talk of the book and the idea and worst is for Next What's In where they say the references are not reliable when the references are from more than a century old leading publising house of India with more than 4 million readers daily. This actually has created a trust deficit but i would still like to clear the concerns. It is very clearly mentioned in the WP:GNG guidelines on notability that 1) "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." 2) I have deeply understood this WP:GNGguideline and nowhere it is mentioned, or even hinted that the coverage of the article should be standalone or cannot be clubbed with any other matter. In fact it is done otherwise where the guideline clearly states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Kindly explain what do you mean by "IT NEED NOT BE THE MAIN TOPIC OF THE SOURCE MATERIAL". I have been repeating this point because i have not got an answer till date for this point. I have just been told that "no it is not a significant coverage" but i have not got an answer to this point. So in the first place why do you need me to "demonstrate notability of this independently of the book"? It's not required. I hope you are not misunderstanding me of repeating it again. I do not want to waste your valuable time. Dennis i will be travelling for my outdoor lectures so there may be a slight delay in my response. Kindly forgive if i have hurt you in any way. It's absolutely unintentional.Thankyou "User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan]] (talk]  —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated comment added 02:01, 15 March 2012 (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.