Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aura-Soma
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aura-Soma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This is an article on a particular kind of energy medicine that is sponsored by a singular company who does not rise to the level of WP:CORP. Wikipedia demands that we be able to cite independent sources, especially when describing non-mainstream ideas. This particular subject is so obscure and has received no outside notice. The only possible sources for it are websites of true believers. This makes the article impossible to write and therefore we need to delete it. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails notability requirements (WP:N, WP:ORG, etc). The only reliable secondary source is a brief narrative in the local-news section of the BBC from 2005, which doesn't seem enough to build an article around and doesn't seem to rise above the level of "trivial" coverage. The remainder of sources are primary sources and self-published websites affiliated with the subject, which are not the makings of an encyclopedic article. Note that I noticed this AfD through discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard. MastCell Talk 21:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the others - I searched this at Quackwatch, where it gets nothing but a very passing mention in a list. That rather suggests lack of notability - realistically, it's only been around since the 80s, so lack of coverage in RS is not surprising. Moreschi (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, obscure. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:ORG/WP:CORP and WP:FRINGE. Obscure therapy is non-notable per [1] (no scientific references) and [2]. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable product of a non-notable organisation. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:10, 23 March 2008 (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.