Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systematic inventive 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 keep. This is difficult as it in part appears to be a "method" being pushed by an individual company more than anything else. Weak consensus after multiple relists appears at this for Keep (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic inventive thinking

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

Non-notable thinking method. Refs are sources for the method, not evidence that it is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As notability guidelines specify: "… there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability". In my case the topic is a well-known innovation methodology, derived from another (and better known) innovation methodology named TRIZ (which also has an article of its own, and mentioned SIT in it, long before this article has been created). This methodology has been developed by two Israeli academic figures, and is being taught in various academic institutions as a creative problem solving and NPD methodology. Furthermore, the content which I've cited is based on various journals (namely Harvard Business Review, Science magazine, Marketing Research, etc.). Also, google's search results (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) shows Google's Scholarly articles (all cited by other Scholarly articles), all of which I've used to cite in my article. Therefore, I fail to see why all the above doesn't account for an evidence for "significant attention from independent sources". Please clarify if (and which) other actions are ought to be taken in order to verify notability. Thanks! Danedt (talk • contribs) 12:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No case to answer here. 1) the article is already cited with several reliable sources. 2) Systematic Inventive Thinking: a new tool for the analysis of complex problems in medical management, Heymann et al 2004 is an RS and it shows the technique has been around since 2000 and has been studied scientifically. 3) Systematic Inventive Thinking Method Based on Theory of Constraints, Jiang and Li, 2010 4)Several training companies offer SIT among other techniques, so they are not tied to SIT specifically, and it is widely taught as indeed the article claims. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ‣ More than a hundred Google Scholar hits, dozens of Google Books hits, and dozens of Google News hits. This topic easily satisfies notability standards, though the article should probably note that there is an Israeli company with the same name involved in researching and promoting the method, especially if this is the company of the method's developers. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 13:32, 26 May 2012 (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.