Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RSVP cycles


 * 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 no consensus. This AfD has been relisted twice and, with the last relist producing no new contributions, I see no merit in a further relist. The discussion has clearly failed to provide a consensus. TerriersFan (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

RSVP cycles

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Completing unfinished AFD. Doesn't seem notable or relevant, reads like a copyvio. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Putting aside the quality of the article, the topic/Halprin's book is notable:
 * Review in Sage's Urban Affairs Review
 * paper in Canadian Theater Review: "Improvisation and Devising: The Circle of Expectation, the Invisible Hand, and RSVP" by Gyllian Raby
 * Paper with substantial discussion: Galia Hanoch-Roe "Musical Space and Architectural Time: Open Scoring versus Linear Processes" International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music Vol. 34, No. 2 (Dec., 2003), pp. 145-160
 * brief Kirkus review
 * DPhil thesis on topic
 * Google Scholar has other results too.--Colapeninsula (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Another system of creative methodology for collaboration, based on an acronym somebody thought was clever. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The above are not valid arguments for deletion. WP:MILL isn't relevant - it says "This page in a nutshell: There are some items that are very commonplace for which sources verifying their accuracy do exist. But there are so many of these that can be verified given the same sources, there cannot possibly be an article on each one, and only those with additional sources deserve articles."  This topic plainly has additional sources exclusively devoted to itself.  And WP:CB isn't policy, it's just an excuse for a silly picture, some poetry, and a little mild swearing; it's about student hoaxes not incomprehensibility on the level of Phenomenology of Spirit. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * New management or self-help theories are indeed commonplace, trivial, and difficult to distinguish in substance from each other. This is just another one, seeking to conceal its banality behind a clever acronym.  One review in a relatively obscure academic journal, and a brief review on Kirkus Reviews, a book trade publication that seeks to make some note of most printed books.  (According to the article, Kirkus reviews 7000 books a year, and will review self published books for a fee.  Kirkus reviews are not evidence of notability.)  This would not even make the Halprin book meet the notability guideline for books; and this whole 'methodology' is apparently Halprin's baby. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep, I think. Halprin was more or less reinventing W. Edwards Deming's plan-do-act cycle, which is not a bad thing to do. Given the Before Web date of Halprin's work, sources are unsurprisingly thin - suspect they'll be on paper. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;SW&mdash; confabulate 21:51, 30 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.