Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine

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 this AfD was delete. It was deleted before the AfD finished out. --Nishkid64 00:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robrindra

I googled "Robrindra" and got 6 hits, none of which correspond to this disease. I went to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Missing diseases/9 and found nothing there titled "Robrindra" or something close to that nature. I believe it's a hoax based on the information in the article, such as it saying that Arthur Russell died of Robrinda when he really died of AIDS. --Nishkid64 23:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 23:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete vandalism. hoax. :) Dlohcierekim 00:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Creator's only article. It was worse before someone else cleaned it up. :) Dlohcierekim 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 00:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I've extensive knowledge of virally-caused immunodeficiency and I've never heard of this. My ignorance is shared by Medline and my 1300pp Clinical Virology tome. Espresso Addict 02:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant WP:HOAX (i.e., fails WP:V). --Kinu ^t/_c 04:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nigel ^(Talk) 12:04, 30 August 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.

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. Herostratus 16:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal nurse consultant

Non-notable profession; basicaly veiled advertising for the firm that sells expensive training. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal Nurse Investigator. Marc Shepherd 18:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep and re-write. Well it seems as if it's written in vain. However, a Google test shows quite a bit of hits for this profession, so it appears to be notable. A re-write will probably fix up this article. --  Nishkid64  ^Talk  18:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite and NPOV. The external links could probably use particular scrutiny after looking at the other AfDs you posted. --Wafulz 18:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs serious re-write but that is not a reason for deletion. In the meantime, it probably should have a {{POV}} or something similar. Agent 86 19:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete without prejudice, per nominator. The concept may be notable, but this is crypto-spam. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely do not delete This is a legitimate nursing specialty regardless of the spammy source for the article. It is as legitimate as the other articles on nursing specialties such as pedes or nurse anaesthetist. THB02:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely do not deleteThis a real profession that has a fair amount of searches per month. Some of the sites listed are 100% SPAM and should not get a link. The ALNC and NALNC are the two main organizations according to all of my research. The NALNC is the only real organization, the others are spam presented by their owners. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs). \User's sole contribution is this comment.
• Strong Keep as I quietly raise my hand as a legal nurse consultant - I've worked for myself full-time since 2002. The article does need a rewrite and there are definite differences between AALNC and NACLNC - http://www.nalnc.org. The Legal Nurse website, owned by the Vickie Milazzo Institutes, is a for-profit enterprise - one woman's company with claims of earning $150 per hour as a legal nurse, which are entirely false and mistleading. (I recognize some of the article's text - it's from the company that holds conferences and advertises false and misleading statements. NALNC - http://www.nalnc.org - is the only real organization. The profession, however, is a serious subspecialty of nursing, just like critical care nursing and the other subspecialties. I don't need Wikipedia validation to continue with my work because you guys don't pay me. However, the nursing articles are atrocious. Deleting articles about recognized nursing specialties with which lay editors aren't familiar doesn't help the encyclopedia as a whole. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 09:44, 3 September 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.

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 discounting annons. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rajesh Chauhan (physician)

Clearly a vanity article. Has clear instances of self-edits and possible sock-puppet edits. Shushruth 03:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The four publications referenced appear to be in minor local journals, largely case studies. The BMJ claims are actually unrefereed responses to the BMJ's online bulletin board, and the other 'papers' in high-quality journals appear to be similar. Espresso Addict 03:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Espresso Addict's thorough research. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO based on WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 07:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Page looks fine to me. Rama's car 09:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The above vote was made bu a person impersonating User:Rama's Arrow and has been blocked for it. He/she is more than likely the sockpuppet of a banned user. Ryūlóng 09:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Very blatantly NPOV, and appears to violate WP:AUTO. Assuming the other facts are real and significant, I would be happy with a tidy-up. However, from the heavily non-neutral tone, it is possible that the claims or the significance of the achievements are bloated. Perhaps needs to be verified by an expert. Ohconfucius 09:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I fear it will be difficult to find a suitable subject expert who has access to the relevant journals (J Assoc Physicians India & Medical Journal Armed Forces India). Espresso Addict 10:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. On 15 August 2006, I personally asked the page's creator to tidy it up and referred him to a number of our guidelines. However, this has been ignored for two weeks, during which the page has not been improved inline with the Manual of Style or our NPOV guidelines. Bob talk 10:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Has a strong POV tone to it. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.

1. How much more does a person has to achieve to make himself worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia?
2. The doctor's biography has been published by Marquis Who’s Who (American publishers of biographies of the best in the field) in Medicine and Healthcare.
3. Certainly he meets the criteria for inclusion.
4. The journals (JAPI - Journal of Association of Physicians of India, and MJAFI) which find the research of the doctor published are indexed with Index Medicus and are highly valued in India.
5. Maybe a reconsideration is required against the verdict of deletion.
6. Necessary minor editing may be adopted if considered necessary in order to make the article more readable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.187.169 (talk) .

• Comment: The Journal of Association of Physicians of India is Medline listed, but I can't find Medical Journal Armed Forces India there. Espresso Addict 01:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC) *MJAFI link from medind now added for reference.

• Delete As no independent WP:RS reliable sources are used. Our standard for biographical notability is at WP:BIO, and Who's Who is intentionally not listed in that standard, as entries therein are often offered on a fee for inclusion basis. Article formatting is also definitely not in accordance with the Manual of Style, but that is not a reason for deletion. GRBerry 01:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - or atleast wikify --T-rex 02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ReverendG 05:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep has written original papers Doctor Bruno 15:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Could you please clarify how simply writing an original paper (which almost all scientists and most physicians do) is a reasonable notability standard for inclusion, i.e., as differentiated from WP:PROF point 3, a significant and well-known paper or work? --Kinu ^t/_c 20:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Significant and well known are NOT OBJECTIVE criteria, but subjective criteria. Recognising Nutritional deficiencies (correctable cause) as a case of diarrhoea in HIV (at present incurable disease) is per se a notable achievement. I invite your attention to WP:PROF point 5 which suits this person adequately. Doctor Bruno 21:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: I decided to debold your comment. And you're right, they are subjective criteria. I suppose based on my limited expertise as a healthcare researcher and a review of the articles themselves, I was not convinced per point 5... but obviously, other editors' mileage may vary. Nonetheless, thank you for providing the clarifications as to your position. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry for that bold text. That was a typo. I did not see the page after typing that comment. Well, you first said that you are not satisfied about 3. Now you say that you are not satisfied about 5 (after being pointed out) Can you be more specific as to what you expect per point 5 (as some one with expertise as health care researcher) so that it will be useful in future discussions _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think the original article was a copyright violation and part of it still exists. Links to Google (and other) searches do not meet requirements of verifiability, no original research, reliable sources and biographies of living people. It also has problems with NPOV. Unless someone digs up some proper references, it needs to be deleted. I removed all the crazy bolding and the circular internal links because it was too distracting and made it too hard to read. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete It's full of POV and needs a lot of cleanup. If the assertions in the article about the various medical discoveries are sourced and verified then I'd think it was worth keeping. As written, it should be deleted, especially if there are still copyright violations remaining. At minimum, those need to be deleted. Brian 17:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)btball
• Delete. Who = who can be bought. Publications should interesting but unless full citations are advanced we shouldn't need to verify them. Will reverse my vote if relevant papers are cited and their impact is stated; otherwise would simply fail WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk 18:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Won't it be better and justified to enquire the credentials of Marquis Who’s Who.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.74.46 (talk • contribs).
• Keep per Doctor Bruno Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. --Ragib 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Can someone please help with the minor editing and wikify the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.65.9 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete without prejudice of recreation if his work can be shown to be verifiably important or notable. Virtually every study in Pubmed reflects some sort of "first"; I'm not convinced his "firsts" are sufficiently important or notable (per WP:PROF). (Closing admin: please watch for 219.64.XXX.XXX socks.) -AED 05:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Stong Keep - Based on this article he has made significant contributions to the health profession. Work like this is vitally important and rarely recognized due to the technical nature of the material. His work establishes a foundation for many other sciences. I think it needs a rewrite, though, and clean up. Additional comment: I changed this to strong keep. His work with malaria alone makes him notable, in my opinion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KarateLady (talk • contribs).KarateLadyKarateLady 14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable as per nom. Style nauseating. Nephron  T|C 03:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:VANITY ~ trialsanderrors 05:04, 2 September 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.

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CpapforMedicare.com

nn website Hojl 01:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete ^{[Check Google hits]}. Agreed. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — non notable with only 315 hits from Google Deon555^talk_Review 01:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, reads like WP:SPAM associated with a site that fails WP:WEB from a company that does not meet WP:CORP. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, This is a WP:Spam. Daniel's page ☎ 02:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu. Erechtheus 02:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu. -AED 03:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spammination Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. JIP | Talk 11:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:CORP -- Whpq 16:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CORP, WP:SPAM, and WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:24, 29 August 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.

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 Withdrawn. (aeropagitica) 12:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DeBarra Mayo

[NB nom has been withdrawn in light of subsequent revisions to the article. Tyrenius 19:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)]
Subject may be notable, but this is clearly a vanity article authored by User:KarateLady. WP:AUTO strongly discourages autobiographical articles. fbb_fan 20:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- 9w6d 06:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I agree with WP:AUTO, and I think this article absolutely must be rewritten by someone with outside perspective. Notability is established with appropriate sources, making this an improper subject for deletion. Erechtheus 20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:AUTO isn't sufficient reason to delete the article. Instead, it needs to be cleaned up. -- Whpq 20:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable.-Kmaguir1 21:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  As she has regularly appeared in the media, perhaps you could expand on your statement to give it more credibility. Tyrenius 05:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So have Senate interns [refactored per BLP].NN.-Kmaguir1 07:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: not notable. FairHair 23:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  As she has regularly appeared in the media, perhaps you could expand on your statement to give it more credibility. Tyrenius 05:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep One point of subject's notability during the 80s in addition to her bodybuilding awards is evidenced by 1986 membership in the Author's Guild, which at the time had strict requirements for membership...members needed at least 3 major publications with credible publishers. None of DeBarra's articles were "self published." I am a researcher who specializes in health and wellness research as well as other areas. Various writers and researchers have profiled DeBarra Mayo. Library or newspaper archives can provide validation. I have done clean up on the article and can do more if needed. I have also created other pages to provide historical reference of the "fitness craze" of the 80s. Thank you. KarateLadyKarateLady 00:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The implication by the nominator appears to be that you are indeed the subject of the article. WP:AUTO strongly discourages the editing of an article by its subject. Erechtheus 00:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity Dlyons493 00:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  "Vanity" is not in itself a reason to delete an article. If this is the only objection, then the article should be kept. Tyrenius 05:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment I am new to Wikipedia and still learning a lot of what is appropriate and what is not. I plan to add many more articles related to health and wellness and I plan to add many more authors and writers who are not yet listed on Wikipedia. I am indeed the author of this article and will be happy to delete or change whatever is needed on this article to conform to the policy. I welcome any other help or comments. I probably went overboard with this article in an attempt to make it factually correct. Thank you for the good input to make it better. KarateLadyKarateLady 01:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep per nom. Vanity is not a reason for deletion, if the subject is notable. I suggest the nom be withdrawn. Tyrenius 03:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Her achievements make her sufficiently notable, and claims seem to be well documented and sourced, but needs a rewrite. I have applied an NPOV template to the page for now. Ohconfucius 05:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  Cleaned up I've been through the article and cleaned it up for NPOV etc. Still needs some attention. Tyrenius 06:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This seems like a good article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• AfD Withdrawn in light of the improvements to the article; hopefully it will not revert to the vanity piece it was at the time of the nomination. fbb_fan 11:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seeing that even the nominator has withdrawn. Vanity is not necessarily a reason for deletion if the subject is notable, like this one. RFerreira 06:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Tyrenius, the subject is notable. bbx 07:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, although it could use more external links to articles from outside sources exploring her accomplishments in the fitness world. She does appear to be notable, based upon a cursory Web/Amazon.com search. Ruthfulbarbarity 09:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (though note nominator has withrawn), auto doesn't override acknowledged notabilty. Article should be kept if notability can be established and if article is verifiable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:46, 31 August 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.

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reach Out

Webcruft, Alexa ranking 487,984. Punkmorten 12:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, unless I am missing something, it does not even assert notability. A clear promotional effort for a nonnotable website. Uucp 21:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - does read as a promo but they are a serious organisation for youth mental health. I've heard them repeatedly covered on non-commercial TripleJ radio, and heard them discussed favourably (radio again) by the South Australian minister of health. At the worst tag it for importance + references and look back in a month or so. Defininately not a speedy candidate - Peripitus (Talk) 12:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Or, rather, revert back to the article I wrote about the Four Tops LP of this name (that, or actually make a proper move to the Reach Out (album) namespace. Whoever created this article didn't even bother to cleanup the links to the article). Wikipedia is not a web directory, not even for a non-profit website. --FuriousFreddy 02:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable Australian mental health organisation, needs rewriting though. --Canley 10:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: the title should be moved to Reach Out! with an exclamation mark, that's the official name. --Canley 10:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 10:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable enough for me. In the same ilk as organisations such as Beyondblue. - Longhair 01:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Canley, Longhair. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep per above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The Inspire Foundation, which runs the website and a couple of other projects, might be worthy of an article, but the website in of itself is not sufficiently notable. Zaxem 03:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Major support organisation in Australia. It is not a website [it HAS one, but is not focused around the website] so Alexa ranking is irrelevant. -- Chuq 04:46, 6 September 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.

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 all.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Nurse Investigator

Non-notable profession, article started by Rnmarket whose sole mission on Wikipedia is apparently to advertise for his legal nurse marketing company of the same name. I am also nominating the following articles, also started by the same person, in this AfD:

• National Alliance of Certified Legal Nurse Consultants - fails WP:CORP
• Vickie Milazzo - fails WP:BIO
• Certified legal nurse investigator - fails WP:SPAM, covert advertising for the LNI Institute mentioned in the article
• RN MARKET - fails WP:CORP
• LNC STAT - non-notable publication by RN Market

Note that yet another of this user's creations, Veronica Castellana, was speedied as CSD A7; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Castellana. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 10:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all neologistic adspam. And thanks to the nominator for the amusing message on my talk page in regards to this nomination. =) Powers ^T 14:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Good work getting all these. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as per nom. wikipediatrix 15:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete all, crypto-spam from a consulting business. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. IceCreamAntisocial 20:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Resolute 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom.-- danntm ^T _C 00:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all I abhor spam and this certainly looks like it. However, is it an accredited course and recognised at all? As a foreigner I can't tell, but the article contains the assertion legitimately use the term 'legal nurse investigator' and the term certification course. Is "certification course" accredited by Government or some professional body? It doesn't look like it from their own site but I just thought it is perhaps worth pausing to check. For example, I know that there is certification for Software testing, articles on two of the accreditations, ISEB and the newer ISTQB, would seem to me to be legitimate articles. I am not sure that that would pass the test I have set, that is they are not government accredited, but I think they are verifiable externally, for example accreditation is called for in job advertisements [1]. Shouldn't that be the test? External refs to the LNI profession are few and far between. I googled up only one: [2]--Arktos ^talk 00:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the profession Legal nurse consultant exists and we have an article on it. The not-for-profit American Association of Legal Nurse Consultants is the membership organization for the profession the USA. It is a profession that requires no certification, as the AALNC FAQ page states. The subject of this debate is a for-profit company marketing a product to registered nurses that they do not really need. A "Legal Nurse Investigator" is just a legal nurse consultant who has paid large sums of money to take this course and get its expensive and unnecessary "diploma", and membership in the inappropriately named "National Alliance of Certified Legal Nurse Consultants" is limited only to people who have paid large sums of money to take this course. SPAM! IceCreamAntisocial 02:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmmm - I do understand and am not trying to be obtuse but there are many professions or vocations for which you do not HAVE to get accreditation. Accountancy is one, software testing is another. You have to pay sums of money if you choose accreditation. We do have articles on those occupation's accrediation. I think the test is probably whether the accreditation is recognised elsewhere. Otherwise the same argument could apply to CPA. Whether or not the training adds value, is needed, ... is POV - is it recognised outside should be the test.--Arktos ^talk 02:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have just AfD'd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal nurse consultant, for similar reasons.

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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ProAna.US

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Pro-anorexia website; contested speedy that maybe possibly asserts notability, so moving here for further discussion. NawlinWiki 01:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• I beleive this article is important, please don't delete it. Thank you. rosaliiasan112@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AnnaR (talk • contribs) 27 August 2006. — then updated by possible single purpose account: 24.59.119.115 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Delete non-notable Hello32020 01:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Rohirok 01:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• I don't belive this article should be deleted, the information is correct, this is a high trafficked site and information should be available, nor is the information here inappropriate, offensive, or rude. Murong Bi — Possible single purpose account: 69.196.145.78 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Response Alexa ranking is below 1 million; that's not very high-trafficked. NawlinWiki 02:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement, non-notable, etc. -- Kicking222 02:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Alexa Rank ~1 million, ~123 results on Google. Bradcis 04:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment No offense, but that's some awfully backwards logic you have there. Are you sure you didn't mean to say delete? --Wafulz 05:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete failing WP:WEB, reads like vanity+spam/advertisement all in one! --james^(talk) 07:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. What a bunch of awful crap --Mecanismo | Talk 11:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement for a website. JIP | Talk 14:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB and WP:"VAIN".-- danntm ^T _C 21:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete per WP:VAIN and, telling it like it is, WP:SPAM. Ohconfucius 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:02, 29 August 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.