Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speed thinking


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Yes, previously nominated and technically ineligible, but no one is contesting deletion. Star  Mississippi  01:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Speed thinking

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Speed Thinking

There are at least two problems with this article, tone and notability. The tone is blatantly promotional, as it has been since the article was written in 2010, and has been tagged as peacock since 2011. It was written by two single-purpose accounts, neither of whom has edited since, one of whom is either the developer of the technique or a relative of the developer of the technique. Removing the puffery would reduce the article to a stub. So the question is whether the topic is notable. Does it pass general notability? Does the article speak for itself and explain how the technique is discussed by reliable sources? The article says that the technique is valuable, but it doesn't attribute that to reliable sources. A check of the references shows that their purpose has probably been to have references because Wikipedia requires them. Four of them are about three other books on similar techniques (and Wikipedia has articles about their authors and their works), which were written before Hudson's books. Two of the references are to the author's books. One of the references has nothing to do with the subject.

This article is about a technique. An article about either of the author's books might or might not pass book notability if it were neutral, which this article is not. This article does not establish that the technique passes general notability, and is promotion. Is there a bit bucket handy? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Management,  and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Delete for notability issues and promotion, should probably have been Speedy Deleted long ago. -- VViking Talk Edits 19:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.