Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RUCS

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. WP:SNOW. Indeed, it is non-notable and promotional. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RUCS

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

"Process" invented by article creator. I originally tagged this as an advert-speedy, but after noticing the AfDs on the related articles, I think it would be better to consider these COI articles as a group. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prealism, also by the same author.

Delete - Nothing but a plug for the author's problem-solving method. No evidence that it is considered notable as a problem-solving method. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Literally nothing comes up on Google for "Rudzki’s Universal Creative Solutions" and the article reads like a WP:PROMOTION violation. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – obvious spam/self-promotion. Non-notable. V2Blast (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant. Mduvekot (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2017 (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.