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 speedy keep. Norminator withdraw nomination (non-admin closure) Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Open Space Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Concerns w WP:PROMO and WP:NOTABILITY. This article about a meeting-organization technique is largely based on promotional pages. Little or no in-depth coverage in WP:RS, though brief mentions are common. If kept, needs major rewrite.HouseOfChange (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Withdrawing this Afd nomination as article has been improved, see below. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep but revise. I just don't buy that this is non-notable. A "Open Space Technology" -site:openspaceworld.com -site:openspaceworld.org -wiki - Google News Search brings back nearly a thousand results. A "Open Space Technology" - Google Scholar search brings back over 3,300 results. It is absurd to claim that this is non-notable. Just because an article is in drastic need of improvement & judicious removal of anything promotion are not criteria for deletion given the subject's notability. Peaceray (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (as nominator) or revise to show notability and remove promotion. I did check Google results before filing AfD, but ran out of patience after many pages of brief mentions and promotion by non-independent sources. Rewriting the article will be a big job and needs to be done almost from scratch. In its current state, it is WP:PROMO and does not belong in Wikipedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC) see below.[reply]

• HouseOfChange: did you look at the Google Scholar results? At least half of the results of the first 30 clearly have Open Space Technology as their focus.
• Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process#What is deletion for? states".. try fixing the POV first." Currently, there have been 228 editors of this article. I cannot believe that the majority of those editors have been placing PROMO into the article. Deleting this article because some of it is PROMO would be a disservice to those editors. I do not believe that this is a case for WP:NUKEIT, which, BTW, is an essay & neither a policy nor a guideline.

-- Peaceray (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Major case of copy pasta going on. I've taged with WP:G12 along with the sources I found.Turns out many of those are copying Wikipedia. But the article seem to follow the format of http://www.chriscorrigan.com/openspace/whatisos.html --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of phrase seem to be lifted from https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wCSuCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT200&lpg=PT200&dq=%22the+individual+groups+go+to+work.%22&source=bl&ots=izhnPc4t5v&sig=gHsrv_8l6bnqenmzZ2lPn2xHdbA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS94DruqPcAhUKI8AKHYWJAJIQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20individual%20groups%20go%20to%20work.%22&f=false as well as these:

• http://openspaceworld.org/wp2/what-is/
• https://www.slideshare.net/DianaWilliams5/open-space-technology-wwit-2018
• http://www.chriscorrigan.com/openspace/whatisos.html
• https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/curriculum_reform_final_19th_dec_1.pdf (Page 27)
• https://slideplayer.com/slide/12796327/
• https://www.clahrc-oxford.nihr.ac.uk/files/impacts-and-resources/openspace.pdf

--Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• See Talk:Open Space Technology#Fixed or not a copvio to see the progress on removing copyvio. At least five of the cited sources are no longer a problem. Peaceray (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Copyvio problems have been resolved with all nine of the sources listed. Peaceray (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am impressed by and grateful for the hard work of Peaceray and Tyw7 to fix copyvio problems. Maybe some of their text changes can be exported to the Wikiversity article for OST, where it would be much more suited. The article's promotional tone, and the lack of critical or even neutral material from independent sources, remains a problem. HouseOfChange (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would like to withdraw my nomination of this article for AfD. Peaceray, Tyw7, and I have done hours of work to improve it, removing copyvio and promotion while adding information from independent RS. This is now an informative article suited to Wikipedia. More detailed info about procedures, etc. are in Wikiversity also. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2018 (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.