Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green hat

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green hat

Copied from self-help book? Definately unencyclopedic. Kerowyn 01:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --Revolución (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I still don't know what it is. --Kinu 01:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. --M@thwiz2020 01:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "The green hat is specifically concerned with ... new ways of looking at things" I'm thinking of looking at this as a redlink. Adrian Lamo ·· 01:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Six Thinking Hats. Tearlach 01:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Blnguyen 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No green light on the green hat Ruby 02:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Royboycrashfan 03:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Avi 04:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Possibly copyvio also. Pschemp | ^Talk 06:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense, no context to determine use of the article. Could be original research or copyvio. Delete in any case.  (aeropagitica)  07:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic, possible copyvio. JIP | Talk 07:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Six Thinking Hats - this makes sense --~::Annie Chung::~ 18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Six Thinking Hats. Are there arguments against redirecting? It would take care of any copyvio. --Allen 00:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Have any of the Delete voters actually bothered to check out the context? Google confirms that this clearly refers to one of the concepts in Edward De Bono's lateral thinking book Six Thinking Hats. Personally, I think the idea is utter utter bullshit. But as it relates to a book by a notable figure, and a page exists for the book, why not redirect to it? Since the content will be destroyed by redirection, as Allen says, copyvio won't be an issue. Tearlach 01:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No idea why should fairly generic green hat point to such a book. Green hat may happen to be actual historical term. Pavel Vozenilek 03:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:29, 10 February 2006 (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.