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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acantelys[edit]

Acantelys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Very difficult to tell what the article is about, only one external link, no references, I doubt it meets WP:GNG, but not having enough substance in the article it would be hard to know what to look for. This needs major expansion and clarification. Otherwise, I'd vote to delete it. Go Phightins! (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What?!? (Delete) - would suggest it almost qualifies for speedy ((db-nonsense)). Stalwart111 (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under ((db-g11)). This article serves no purpose other than to promote the subject, Acantelys Research Group. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 15:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for speedy deletion, but it was contested and removed by an admin and if I prodded it the creator would've removed it so I just streamlined it knowing there'd be overwhelming support to delete here. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense - I don't think it will be a struggle to get consensus on this one. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a private research group in Venezuela from what I an gather. They have presented a bunch of ppaers seems to be the claim for notability. I see no coverage about this group in reliable sources, and a google scholar search doesn't indicate that they have made much of a research impact. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - EL at the top of the page followed by promotional copypasta. – MrX 02:41, 10 September 2012 (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.