Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free structuring


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Free structuring

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a non-notable name for node–link diagramming. I searched in a variety of search engines and did not find reliable sources indicating notability. The claim by the person who allegedly coined the term that it is a "distinctive way of recording one's own thinking" only betrays ignorance of the use of such node–link diagramming in, for example, graphic facilitation and sketchnoting. Biogeographist (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: By the way, before helpfully trimmed it, the original version of the article was also an WP:ADVERT for yet another node–link diagramming web app. Biogeographist (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Later it occurred to me that what the creator of this article was trying to express is equivalent to the common adjective freeform or free-form (see also free-form), "structure" being a synonym for "form". But there is no evidence that "free structuring" is a notable name for free-form diagramming, and Wikipedia is not for publicizing non-notable neologisms. Biogeographist (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Neologism. The only sources I can find are related to the advertised webapp, nothing independent or reliable. - MrOllie (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - general node-link diagramming as linked is very different to what free structuring is. Sketchnoting seems to put emphasis on different elements and hand-drawing. Graphic facilitation is emphasizing hand drawing again. Digital tools enable more freedom in information structuring compared to anything paper based, therefore concrete examples (two very much different ones at that) were mentioned so that anybody can create their own impression. I don't think the trimming was actually helpful, because anything concrete is missing now. There is no history, no further leads. Free structuring is quite notable in the czech pedagogic community so this is basically a translation to facilitate better understanding e.g. when talking with partner schools elsewhere. The linked article by Barbora Jeřábková was published by the National Pedagogic Institute (NPI), which is a public institution related to the ministry of education. NPI creates e.g. the framework for education in public schools. To summarize, free structuring is putting a label on a specific approach to working with information that was researched for ~ 40 years by doc. Zdeněk Hedrlín. For this event, the mathematical community gathered for a whole day to commemorate his contributions. As the author of the article, I am quite open to improving it to help international audience better understand the concept, its significance and the history leading to it. It is my first article here, until now I only helped to make existing articles better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliszad (talk • contribs) 15:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This comment by the article's creator does not add any information that refutes the rationale for deletion. I looked at screenshots of the web app that was mentioned in the article, and what the web app does is very obviously node–link diagramming. Free-form node–link diagramming is often used in graphic facilitation and sketchnoting (among other kinds of visual organization), so I don't see anything "distinctive" about "recording one's own thinking" in "free structuring" as the coiner of the term is quoted in the article as saying. And of course mathematicians played an important role in the development of node–link diagramming software, and of course mathematicians with long careers often get commemorated in special events: none of that is a surprise, but it is irrelevant to this deletion discussion. And, if you are connected to the software in any way, you should disclose that. Biogeographist (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The article wasn't meant to be about specific software, else I would write a specific article about OrgPad.org or OrgPad.com, which I haven't. Both are very different, the first being open source. I am involved with OrgPad.com as can be easily spotted because I use the same username on GitHub and it is linked there. I am not paid to write anything on Wikipedia or anywhere else and it is not my job to do anything like it. I am not sure at which screenshots from which software you have looked at. By looking at a horse carriage and the very first cars you could easily mistake one for the other. The same is with sugar or salt until you taste them. If you want to talk specifics about software that was mentioned in one sentence, please try it out first. You can use both webapps for free, so actually trying it out would be great if you consider deleting any work of other people. It is quite cavalier to write of basically life-long contributions of a person to multiple areas of study, such as category theory or graph theory. E.g. Václav Chvátal, a student of Z.H., came over from Canada for the commemoration and gave a talk. It is especially important, because doc. Zdeněk Hedrlín was in fact the father of the ideas behind free structuring. The article as is doesn't add much value to any reader, since you have collectively removed at least half of its utility instead of suggesting e.g. a better formulation. Perhaps it would be best to extend the article about Z.H. and dedicate a section of it to free structuring or the ideas behind it. That would perhaps take some heat out of the discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliszad (talk • contribs) 00:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * None of this is relevant to the rationale for deletion. Instead of continuing to talk about your software as you did in half of the content of the article you created, if you want to save the article from deletion then you should present sources that show the WP:NOTABILITY of "Free structuring" and use those sources to write an informative encyclopedia article instead of a few sentences that are so vague that other editors are forced to guess what it is supposed to be about. A Google Images search for OrgPad shows images that I would call node–link diagramming. If that is not what free structuring is, then why don't you edit the article and explain what free structuring is in a way that differentiates it from free-form node–link diagramming, using references to a variety of reliable independent sources? People shouldn't have to use your software to learn what free structuring is; it should be possible to learn what free structuring is simply by reading the article. The fact that you are telling people just to use the software to understand free structuring makes the whole purpose of the article look even more like an WP:ADVERT for the software. Biogeographist (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as neologism not in common use. If the editor wishes to provide material on Hedrlín's work, might I suggest expanding the article Zdeněk Hedrlín instead? That could really use some love, and some content beyond the bare-bones biographical material. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Neologism without appropriate secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO.4meter4 (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2021 (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.