Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Age Skin Research Foundation

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. Keeper | 76 00:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Age Skin Research Foundation

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

Also included in this nomination:

This set of articles constitutes a "walled garden" of highly promotional articles which do not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. All three articles were created and edited by a group of users and IPs (User:Micheal Krimshaw, User:Stibbatha, User:108.54.150.54, User:173.251.90.50) who appear to have a connection to the subjects and who have made no other contributions to Wikipedia. Peacock (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 8. Snotbot t • c » 16:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertorial. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all. Overly promotional, the foundation does not appear to pass WP:ORG (e.g. judging by the poor quality of its sourcing and the press-release-heavy coverage I can find in news sources) and the two researchers do not appear to pass WP:PROF (low citations in a high citation specialty). The check for academic impact in the case of Fox is complicated by someone else named J. L. Fox who appears to be a neurosurgeon, and has better citations, but I'm pretty sure it's a different person. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2013 (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.