Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Association of Therapists & Medical Doctors (IAAT)

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. Per compelling evidence of PW:HOAX. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Therapists & Medical Doctors (IAAT)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am confident that this article is a hoax.

As of Special:PermanentLink/1029619812, the article had eight sources: four primary, and four secondary. I was able to search the first three sources, and none of them had "IATT" or any plausible permutation of the organization's name anywhere in the works.
The four primary references are all to the organization's website (archive), which has several troubling features:
- The entire website only has a single page, which would be odd for a real international organization with tens of thousands of members.
- The "white paper" they place prominently on their homepage is published through Zenodo, which is just a place you can upload papers, with zero editorial oversight.
- The photos of staff are firmly in uncanny valley, and the blurbs oscillate weirdly between first and third person
- There's a bunch of material from reputable sources that they just reproduce on their website, seemingly hoping some credibility rubs off on them
- They have a domain, yet their email is "[email protected]"
- Their "terms and conditions" and "privacy policies" are... extremely vague, unlike any others I've ever seen
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klaus Bells for additional evidence that may link the creator of this article to another account creating hoaxes.

I believe this qualifies for a G3 speedy deletion, but I opened an AfD in order to leave a paper trail. Vahurzpu (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the points in the nomination, and also note that the people behind it have a very American notion of what "International" means (it seems to be about as international as the World Series). The liaison for non-U.S. members has resigned on account of "irreconcilable disagreements". Athel cb (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Question. Following up on the "liaison for non-U.S. members" before she resigned on account of "irreconcilable disagreements" (Dr. Carolina Diamandis -- the only one who seemed to have clear medical qualifications) I found myself at the article on Authorea. I was surprised to see how much like an advertisement it is. It was created in 2015 by User:Jace Harker, who also made a very high proportion of the edits (around half, at a rough estimate). On his user page, he says "Currently I'm the Director of Community at Authorea, a web-based collaborative writing tool for students and researchers. Authorea is a completely free service for Open Access writing, with a freemium model for private writing." It already said that in February 2015 (so it's not a new appointment), but I was under the impression that articles were not supposed to be created by people very close to the subject. Athel cb (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the alleged IAAT is an obvious hoax, before we even get to the article about it. Mccapra (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete In this case, dear Mccapra the situation was a bit different. As explained Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klaus Bells I wrote this article in good faith and with consent because this association is not a hoax, at least not when they helped my family member, user “OnSpeech”. However, it might very well be that this association is not notable enough for Wikipedia. This can be, absolutely. So given the entire context, I also agree that a speedy delete is the most clean solution. And rest assured, I checked everything earlier this morning. All of OnSpeech’s chaos will be cleaned up when the articles in question well be deleted. And I have enough to do than to be a truly active Wikipedian. So my sincerest apology for all chaos that happened. I just want to add that I write under my real name (with a minor change) and would appreciate when this family matter, even when it affected Wikipedia, would move into some archive or gets deleted entirely. For you all here this was inconvenient, for us it’s our daily real lives in a family in severe distress because of what I explained. Klaus Bells (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Above editor indeffed for being a sockpuppet of article creator. Ravenswing 16:19, 5 July 2021 (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.