- 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 delete as WP:G7 Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Religion and Advertising of Controversial Products
- Religion and Advertising of Controversial Products ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very clearly WP:OR . The references are used as if they were academic references and not references for the article itself. No notability. Velella Velella Talk 09:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete.I have always said that there needs to be a speedy deletion criterion for pages that are clearly not intended to be encyclopedia articles. I've seen social networking pages, resumes, and even Choose Your Own Adventure-style stories. In this case, we have (what appears to be) a research paper. WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:OR certainly give ample grounds for deletion in this case, but it's too bad that we can't take swifter action here. I would like to note, however, that there are Wikipedia articles about notable experiments (see, e.g., Milgram experiment, Stanford prison experiment), but Wikipedia is not a forum for publishing the results of new or novel experiments. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 15:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- We can now speedy delete this per WP:G7 as the author has requested deletion. Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 23:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- delete per above. This is a research paper, not an encyclopedia article. Mangoe ( talk) 20:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:NOTESSAY. GabeIglesia ( talk) 20:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Please delete. I have understood the reasons. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshaymassey ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:00, 23 March 2016 (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.
- 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 delete as WP:G7 Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Religion and Advertising of Controversial Products
- Religion and Advertising of Controversial Products ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very clearly WP:OR . The references are used as if they were academic references and not references for the article itself. No notability. Velella Velella Talk 09:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete.I have always said that there needs to be a speedy deletion criterion for pages that are clearly not intended to be encyclopedia articles. I've seen social networking pages, resumes, and even Choose Your Own Adventure-style stories. In this case, we have (what appears to be) a research paper. WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:OR certainly give ample grounds for deletion in this case, but it's too bad that we can't take swifter action here. I would like to note, however, that there are Wikipedia articles about notable experiments (see, e.g., Milgram experiment, Stanford prison experiment), but Wikipedia is not a forum for publishing the results of new or novel experiments. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 15:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- We can now speedy delete this per WP:G7 as the author has requested deletion. Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 23:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- delete per above. This is a research paper, not an encyclopedia article. Mangoe ( talk) 20:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:NOTESSAY. GabeIglesia ( talk) 20:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Please delete. I have understood the reasons. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshaymassey ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:00, 23 March 2016 (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.