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. The arguments for retaining this article are overall weak and unpursuasive, notably those that claim the subject is notable without adequate evidence. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creative inspiration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article seems to consist mostly of original research or the author's own interpretation of the sources, and reads as the author's personal essay on the topic. Subject of article is fairly disjointed (to the point where it became difficult to determine an appropriate category for the article when I prepared this nomination). Author means well, but I believe this comes under WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Singularity42 (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No need for article. Topic is covered elsewhere. Essay and OR. Szzuk (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. While I think that there might be a viable subject lurking somewhere in that article, its creator (Stevenwcronin (talk · contribs)) has included a lot of very fragmentary and ill-defined concepts. Presenting it in this manner makes it basically original research, because the article purports to correlate a lot of things that appear to be essentially unrelated. He has cited some sources (albeit improperly), but given the above concerns, I think it would be necessary to specifically clarify to what degree those sources actually support the text of the article. The "weak" in my "delete" stems from the thought that it's quite possible that some of these sources actually do discuss this concept specifically, and maybe even use the term "creative inspiration"—if that usage can be demonstrated to be significant, then there might be some merit after all. TheFeds 04:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ironically, the creator had some creative inspiration in writing this, but normally we delete personal essays. I'd be willing to keep it, if someone can turn this into a real article. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The article has been created by a new editor who is looking for assistance. This procedure is not appropriate, being contrary to our behavioural and deletion policies. It would be better to engage with the topic at the article and its talk page as it has great notability. I have made a start ... Colonel Warden (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am the one who nominated the article, I think I should respond.

• I am aware of WP:BITE, and I think I have a very good history and reputation of following it. In this case, the problems with the article were pointed out on September 11th, both with article tags and with editors giving advice to the article's author about the problems. Over a month went by with none of the issues being addressed. The article seemed to be beyond the hope of rescue (as others above have agreed) and I nominated the article for deletion. I think WP:BITE has been complied with here.

• What seems missing is discussion on the article's talk page. Tags have an unfriendly tone - like a form letter and so are not a good alternative. IMO. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion on the talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am fully aware of deletion policies. This article appears to be a personal essay, and relies heavily on the author's interpretation and correlation between different events and different personal quotes from various people. It is not clear in any way what part of the article can be sourced to the two references and what part is the article's author's own personal views. This would definitely fall under WP:OR concerns and WP:NOT#ESSAY. Singularity42 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There doesn't seem to have been any consideration of alternatives to deletion. These include knocking the article back to a stub or merger with similar articles such as creativity, invention and inspiration which all cover similar ground. Such action is indicated not just by our deletion policy but also our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how do you envision such a stub? "Creative inspiration is when a person is inspired to be creative." ?? Singularity42 (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original research. GlassCobra 16:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• what is the original thesis of this article? Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a combination of WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:NOT#ESSAY. Some examples of what I find to be unsourced and/or unconvincing:
  • Creative inspiration results in the creation of something new.

    And this differs from creativity how?

  • Many inventors are able to describe an inspirational moment when they recall the moment when their inspiration occurred.

    Sounds like, "Many inventors can remember when they invented something"—which sounds too fuzzy to me.

  • Bill Gates has stated that he dreamed of a day when every person could have their own computer.

    I believe that that was a metaphorical dream (see the last paragraph in this article), not actual—which means it denies this article's central thesis (or at least what I think it is—it's certainly not clear to me).

  • Creative inspiration is the spiritual force by which creativity happens.

    Once we're talking about a "spiritual force," I think we're out of the realm of what can be written in a WP article (that is, outside of a referenced "some believe that…").

  • all forms of creative inspiration (artistic, scientific, philosophical, and religious) are mediated by non ordinary states of consciousness.

    While that may be a quote from a book, just saying it doesn't make it so.

  • creative inspiration involves a "regression" to a primary state of consciousness

    Always? Sometimes? Or just "one person once said…"?

I don't believe that it's possible to write a solid article on a topic this fuzzy and ill-defined. Maybe we should get WP:WikiProject Philosophy/Metaphysics involved? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep or wp:incubate article feels notable to me, but needs a rewrite UltraMagnus^speak 11:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Anything sourceable and relevant in this should have been added to Creativity or Artistic inspiration. No need for a spun-off essay on a topic that's treated elsewhere. Deor (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Click on the Google Books search at the top of the AFD. It is mentioned as an actual thing, enough times in publications, and even in news items as well, to be considered something worth a Wikipedia article. It has plenty of coverage. Dream Focus 14:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Having read the above notes I'm not minded to alter my original opinion. It certainly is written like an essay. Whilst the concept isn't OR the opinions expressed in the article are. Biting new editors isn't good but neither is leaving undeserving articles. The concept isn't worthy of its own article, therefore I believe that the article should be deleted and a paragraph on creative inspiration placed in Creativity. Szzuk (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I do not believe a paragraph anywhere else would serve. While yes, creativity is writen of elsewhere, this particular term itself has in-depth usage [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], and many, many more [17]... which merits coverage of this term here in Wikipedia. So while yes, this particular article from a newcomer reads like an essay, the project will benefit from it being cleaned up, rewritten, expanded, and further sourced... but will not benifit from its deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Incubate. The text as it stands is inappropriate for Wikipedia. However, there are enough references noted above to suggest that the topic is notable - provided that we can discuss it in an even tone, from a neutral point of view, and so long as those sources are used appropriately. This will require a lot of work, and the article incubator seems to be a good spot for it. Userfication would be a second choice, but the article should not remain in the mainspace. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.