Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Becker's ASC 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Becker's ASC Review[edit]

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

Procedural completion for broken nomination. Not sure of the reasoning. I am neutral Ravendrop 16:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Publication lacks noteworthiness and its main author is "BeckerASC," implying this could be a vanity page or self-promoting page. TheNate (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All references are self-referential. There is no external coverage that I could find; all Google hits are to the publication itself. While we're at it, someone should nominate Becker's Hospital Review and Becker's Orthopedic & Spine Review as well. --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically, the article is an expanded business card. Wickedjacob (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2011 (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.