Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emergenetics

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 October 27.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emergenetics

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

A psychometric profiling tool. Has been deleted twice as spam. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The numerous references tell me "Yes, this is notable". -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yeah, looks like a large number of independent groups and organizations are using this for personality profiling (for hiring, position placement, etc.), much like the Meyers-Briggs and other such tests. Can't guess at how useful the test itself is, or who is editing the WP page on it, but clearly it has established notability. --Kickstart70-T-C 18:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I feel that the references are misleading. Four of them are about statistical tests, not Emergenetics. The other sources do not support the article either. Stripping all of that away, it still appears to be spam at worst and unsupported research at best. TN‑X-Man 18:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the first 100 hits in Google, 95 or so are advertisements for the book or the course, and 5 are blogs of participants. I didn't go on, but I'd expect an gradual increase in the blogs, but no increase over the zero number of real references. GS has a similar proportion of PR among its very few hits. TNXMan has analyzed the refs in the article right. If it ever becomes notable, there will be real references, and a nonspammy article could then perhaps be written, which is the only reason I did not say "delete and salt" DGG (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references are credible, and the world-wide reach of the organization, along with the large number and diversity of its clientele, makes it notable.--Mo2415a (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Mo2415a (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: This article meets Wikipedia's three core content policies of 'Neutral point of view', 'Verifiability' and 'No original research'. The references cited, precisely because they are not all about Emergenetics, support the policy of 'Neutral point of view', and can easily be verified. While a Google search may highlight more commercial than non-commercial weblinks, this does not indicate the lack of real references, for example, there could exist other references that are currently not online, such as books and periodicals. The content too is not made up of only original research - perhaps further citations are needed to help give more clarity to this issue. Given more time, this new article should be able to build up on its credibility and diversity of opinions as more Wikipedia users contribute their edits.--Ladybug97 (talk) 05:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Ladybug97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. Per the analysis of TNXMan and DGG. Also, I've left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology yesterday, but insofar none of the regulars came here to support these tests. VG ☎ 12:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — plainly put, this fails WP:SPAM. The only thing missing here that is keeping me from exclaiming G11 and making another reference to Hormel or to Monty Python is some slogan saying Please try Emergenetics today! or similar. It's like one of those four-page-long advertisement pieces you find in magazines (or one full page in a newspaper) that tries to make itself look like an actual part of the publication, or a paper version of those infomercials where the people sit down and "engage in serious conversation about a topic." In either case, this is nothing more than a mere promotion of a product, and in Wikipedia, that's called spamming. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fully agree with MuZemike. The spammers are getting better at presenting their material, but this remains a breathlessly promotional presentation of a dubious commercial product named by a non-notable neologism. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to psychometrics. Non-notable variation of a notable idea. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I reached the same conclusions of Tnxman307, the provided references do not establish the notability of the subject matter, and in most cases are referencing topics unrelated to the subject matter itself. Anything that comes close to offering notability is self-published or likely self-published. Likely to reconsider if independent third party reliable sources can be found, but from the comments above, it looks like people have searched in vain already. Neil916 (Talk) 23:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If there are going to be similar style instruments (i.e. Myers Briggs) and even the instrument that this profile grew out of (i.e. Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument) on Wikipedia, I don't see why this one shouldn't remain as well. My Google search showed several articles relating to the numerous awards that Emergenetics and it's founder received for her work (most notably the Colorado Business Woman of the Year). This in my eye passes the "notability" test. --Tde49p (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC) — Tde49p (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.