The result was redirect to Corey Feldman. Redirecting rather than deleting due to the argument that "Mindy Feldman" is a plausible search term, and also because she is mentioned in Corey's article. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tis a sad thing when being the sister of Corey Feldman is one of your claims to fame. Her acting credits are too few and weak. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Mindy was the youngest "Mouseketeer", almost a mascot in a way, but frankly, VERY TALENTED! Mindy EARNED her ears through her voice, look, and "Tude" "Suprise-Day" was RIGHT when she sang it..and she is a GREAT Actress. Mindy...in the 70's I rode on my old Schwin...bike..(Banana BLUE Banana seat..METAL FLAK Mind you <Grin> To Chatsworth from The Valley (Granada Hills)..just to meet you. Hey Min..... Get ahold of me.....when ya got time :-)
Hope all is well with you and your family....all the best! -Ethan Tudor W. www.imdb.com KEYWORD Ethan Tudor W.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that there is no FPL for women in the US, which has no bearing on notability, and on the grounds that she has been to, but has not played for the US national team, which is explicitly excluded per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article have been created so many months ago. There is no longer fully professional leagues in women's football, so the articles are created primarily based on the athlete level of notability. And Franch has notability, since she already have been called to the United States senior team and she's one of the top prospects goalkeepers in the U.S--SirEdimon (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
THERE NO FULLY PRO LEAGUE in women's soccer. Franch has notability, she never played in senior level for USA, but many articles of women's players are about player that never ever played for her their countries in senior level.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple, let's nominate all of them for deletion.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can I improve the article to avoid deletion?--SirEdimon (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look this https://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=Adrianna+Franch&oq=Adrianna+Franch&gs_l=hp.12...0.0.1.575.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1c.CwCPuJmy9ro&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&biw=1024&bih=607&ech=1&psi=HptTUPU3i-ryBKT8gOgC.1347656797799.3&emsg=NCSR&noj=1&ei=HptTUPU3i-ryBKT8gOgC --SirEdimon (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A completely made-up fictional element that has absolutely no notability. There are absolutely no reliable sources about this. As the whole topic was just made up by a usenet group, and never expanded to anything meaningful, WP:MADEUP also applies here. This article has somehow existed since 2004, and in that time, the subject in question has never managed to gain any notability. Rorshacma (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 04:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, Page Curation did remove my motivation.Non-notable building with a smell of advertising, not exeptionally high, no notable architect, no sources. The Banner talk 21:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. The article also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by the nominator). (non-admin closure) Electric Catfish 23:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Keiden (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article (and its twin: Bouchard II of Montmorency) appear to be hoax or OR, based on real people but padded with nonsense. The given reference: [2] only mentions Montmorencys after ca. 1500. And the timeline (Bouchard I served Charlemagne? Bouchard II served Hugh Capet?) is impossible.
The second page could be salvageable (if renamed to Bouchard_I and significantly cleaned up.) I'm finding a few references.
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject plainly fails the notability criteria for authors. Slashme (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Flaxweiler. There is a broad consensus that there shouldn't be a stand-alone list on this subject at this time, but consensus is less clear on whether the result should be "merge" or "delete". I am closing as merge as I couldn't see a compelling reason brought forward that deletion would be preferable to merging. If any of the "delete" !voters feel that the list doesn't belong in the village article, that can be dealt with by regular editing and/or discussion on Talk:Flaxweiler. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that I could create some stub articles for some of these, but I couldn't find any information about any of them, other than lists of mayors. Even the present incumbant has very little press coverage or mentions elsewhere. As such, I do not feel that this list will ever be more than a list of redlinks, which is not the purpose of such a list. Lists should predominently point to articles, which this one does not and probably never could. As such, I do not think that it meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. I note that all the other 'lists of mayors', although some of them have several redlinks, none of them have all redlinks. That itself is not a valid reason for deletion (per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but the fact that - despite spending a couple of hours looking up all the names on the list - I was unable to find anything with which to create article is, in my opinion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another in a series of non-notable faux order articles created by User:Kimon. Only one source other than to that organization's website. No news hits, no Scholar hits, Google search dominated by Wiki mirrors and various heraldry blogs. Fails the GNG. Am open to a redirect to Georgian Legion. Ravenswing 19:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely limited coverage by reliable and independent sources. Esw01407 (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources in the article are a primary source from the US Department of Justice and a news report of Sutton's conviction. I can find no other reliable sources, so, if nobody else can do so, this should be deleted per WP:NOT#NEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 04:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Fails WP:BLP1E as only notable for gaining a CBE. The entire article is repeated at 2008 New Year Honours so there is no loss of content. As a British civil servant it is very unlikely that her activities are covered in reliable sources and I have been unable to find any through internet searches. If there are additional sources to expand the article then that is great, if not, then the content can be retained in the 2008 article until we have more source material. Road Wizard (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close; wrong forum. Discussion on the deletion of redirects or conversion of redirects into articles should be done at Redirects for discussion. I will open an RfD momentarily. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should better be restored; but this redirect is not helpful in any way and worse than nothing. KnightMove (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non Notable. May be kept in wikipedia or project namespace, but not in the main space. — Zanaq (?) 16:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a rugby union team in the seventh tier of Welsh rugby. The team does not meet WP:GNG or WikiProject Rugby's notability criteria for clubs. The club is young in comparison with many Welsh clubs so not of great note in that respect. The article seems to be simply a repository for large amounts of statistics/results for the club, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A very small (45 employees), non notable company - Written like an advertisement Itemirus (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable - no indication of importance - Only source is a scantily viewed video on youtube - Possible autobiography Itemirus (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PORNBIO and has been subject of recent major BLP violations Gaijin42 (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. A lot of the arguments given in this discussion are not valid arguments for deletion, and participants who have not yet done so would be well advised to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. After excluding these arguments, there is consensus that the coverage in independent reliable sources is enough to satisfy the general notability guideline (even if we do not count nyteknik.se). There doesn't seem to be much support for a merge, and a few of the merge arguments were based on E-Cat's fringe status, which in itself is not a valid argument for merging or for deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Delete this article because it represents just undue weight to a device impossible even only to define with independent sources (the definition that is actually written in the page is wrong and unsupported, more details can be found here). TheNextFuture (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)— TheNextFuture (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep if for no other reason than to preserve the edit history so that when the truth is known, we can track the evolution of a controversial topic. Jim Bowery (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
off-topic WP:OR about primary sources of no relevence to the article, and even less to this discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Alanf777 (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Since the original proposer of the Delete seems to have disappeared, and since there seems to be an overwhelming majority for keep -- there's only ONE other vote for delete (and only a few arguing for a merge)--- isn't it time to wrap this up? And put a time limit (say a year) before any other nomination is accepted ? Alanf777 (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a (reasonably) well-written page about a non-notable band. Their is some independent coverage of the band available: this blog post from the Coventry Telegraph and this interview from This is Lincolnshire are already included in the article, and a Gnews search also brought up this story about their neighbours complaining about the noise that their band makes during rehearsals. That does not add up to meeting WP:MUSICBIO in my eyes - I'd welcome your thoughts on this. Thanks. — sparklism hey! 14:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heavily reliant on one source thesimsmania 09:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had considered PRODing this, even after cleaning out the puff, but it would probably only invite the addition of the few references (including ones in other languages) that I found but which are not all RS and do not provide enough scope, number, and depth to assert notability per WP:CREATIVE. Mostly are listings and short reviews of the movies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR mini-essay. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you nominated the article for deletion, it doesn't appear that you think it's totally fine for other people to not work on it. It instead appears that you want it deleted unless other people work on it. That's what I'm talking about. If you're actually unable to do the research to determine what source material is available concerning the topic of an article (which I doubt is the case) then you should not be nominating articles for deletion because doing so is the basic essential step in determining whether a topic meets the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia - you should not simply take a guess at whether or not there's further material on a topic and create an AfD to prompt others to do that research.
Besides that, "it's just a definition" and "it's unsourced" are completely different deletion rationales from the nomination. If you just personally want it deleted and don't actually have any underlying valid policy concerns, and you're just going to keep tossing out whatever arguments you can come up with to see what sticks, there's even less reason for anyone else to go off on goose chases to try to satisfy the complaint you have at any particular moment. With the amount of hits your own ((find sources)) links are generating, the burden's on you to show that none of these sources demonstrate that the topic "open terrain" satisfies inclusion criteria for Wikipedia - if there's source material out there, per policy the article should remain.
As S Marshall says below, there's no reason why "open terrain" should be a redlink. Inclusion is based upon the characteristics of the topic itself, not anything having to do with the writing of the article that's on Wikipedia at any given moment. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFOOTBALL by never having played senior international football or in a fully professional league as listed here; no evidence of the subject receiving enough non-trivial media coverage to pass the general notability guideline. PROD to this effect removed without comment when his new club was added, but that club plays in the Norwegian second tier, which is not fully pro. Struway2 (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
more of an advertisement than an encyclopedic article; appears low popularity judging by search for web references and the software library's Web page forum activity. Suggest that notability is insufficient to merit an entry here. Rob.desbois (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike other major cities like Mumbai and Delhi, Lucknow has very little high-rise buildings and does not warrant an article, due to lack of sources available. Secret of success (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus defaulting to keep. Consensus is that the topic does have sufficient notability and sources to be a stand alone article; and there is also rough agreement that the article as currently stands is inappropriate, and likely meets WP:PLOT which is a valid reason for deletion. Advice at WP:ATD supports looking at editing alternatives to deletion when the topic is notable but the article is problematic, and there are calls for upmerging to allow sourced material to be gathered in the parent article until such time as the material grows sufficiently to allow it to be split out per WP:Summary style into a standalone. So, the situation is that the article as stands can be called either as a delete/redirect/merge due to failing WP:Plot, while the topic itself meets our inclusion criteria. The decision as to which way to go rests on the consensus of the discussion, and the consensus here is to keep the article, so it is appropriate that the article is kept, though with a flag that the article as it stands needs attention. Given that the consensus is to keep the topic rather than the article, and that a formal "Keep" would in essence be validating an article that comes up against WP:Not, I feel it would be fairer to close this as no consensus, defaulting to keep. It would be helpful if those involved in this discussion do not just to move on after this AfD is closed, but engage in improving the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[Amended following discussion on my talkpage SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)][reply]
A fictional organization in a series of popular novels. Tagged for failing WP:N since January, entirely written as in-universe plot summary incompatible with WP:WAF, and entirely unsourced. Such content is better suited to fan wikis; any necessary plot summary belongs in the article about the respective novels or in one character list (there are currently far too many). Sandstein 17:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete While it pains me deeply to say this and verges on self-harm, the article fails basic notability criteria and is not professionally written and should be deleted. (Such recondite material should not be freely disseminated among the plebs anyways) Ankh.Morpork 22:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Weak Keep. - It is apparent that the policies governing fictional work are unclear and inconsistently applied. It is a fine line what constitutes a secondary topic and requires independent sourcing, and what falls under the notability umbrella that applies to the primary subject. This and the scattering of sources produced that allude to the City Watch have led me to change my vote. Ankh.Morpork 11:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization at Georgetown. Nearly all of the reliable sources are to the student newspaper The Hoya, which cannot be used as a reliable source as it is not separated enough from the subject (also note the original author). The AFD from 2008 closed as no consensus, but it is clear now that Wikipedia shouldn't be hosting all of these individual student organization articles. There are only four sources used on this article that are not from Georgetown. THe first one doesn't mention the organization, the second is dead, the third doesn't appear to be a reliable source, and the fourth is a passing mention.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Album from a band without an article. I think the only reliable source is the Stylus Magazine one. Orphan. Secretlondon (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Burzum. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
searched and cannot be established as having received sufficient coverage from reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet the general notability guideline. This tarot reading approach is trivially mentioned in news sources here. There are many books on the subject, but many of them are written by the creator, Juliet Sharman-Burke and Liz Green, and cannot be considered independent. Other books do not provide significant coverage of the subject. Furthermore, the article suffers from a promotional tone. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, all.
Thanks, Jethro for copying my comment here. However, to clarity I am not the creator of this page, nor associated in any way with the creator of the Mythic Tarot deck or book. I am only the author of the complete re-write of the article which I posted first week of September, strictly in response to Wikipedia's red flags requesting an edit.
Here are some links which I've added to my edit as references re:
a) Tarot widely used by licensed psychotherapists; and
b) Mythic Tarot deck favored by such therapists / counsellors (i.e. not only by fortune tellers)
http://www.tarotschool.com/ElementalArray.html
http://www.tarottherapy.co.uk/cittprosp.htm
http://transpersonalpodcast.org/2010/09/06/hillary-anderson--using-the-tarot-in-therapy.aspx
http://donnafisherjackson.com/services/tarot.html
Here's a link to the Tarotpedia's entry on the Mythic Tarot, re: the deck's considered notability by independent authorities on the Tarot.
http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/Mythic_Tarot
Also note that there is a Wikipedia entry for Liz Greene, one of the creators of the Mythic Tarot. Does that indicate some notability precedent for her works?
Pardon any redundancy. As I'm new to this process, I've copied this info to a couple of Talk pages on this subject. Hope this is helpful. Thanks for your attention to this issue. --Atalanta the Huntress (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 04:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
searched and can't be established as Wikipedia-notable Lachlan Foley (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Fight OUT Loud. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:POLITICIAN weirdly this guys husband is a redirect to this article? Any ideas why this would be? Facts, not fiction (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 04:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable player. This player only has 4 appearences. the article should be incubated until the player is established in the league. tausif(talk) 07:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Speedy Delete as nonsensical hoax. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No sources given for this 'remarkable' discovery, that reads a bit dubious to me. Robert Keiden (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. CtP (t • c) 23:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Not notable. No GNews/GBook hits. GHits consist of promo/directory listings for company. No reliable and verifiable sources listed or found. Refs provided are either from the company (not independent) or local. GregJackP Boomer! 04:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Some of the sources may be quite brief in their coverage, but there seems to be a consensus that there is enough material out there to satisfy WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this article for deletion after discovering it in relation to another AfD. There is no in-depth coverage of this award in independent and reliable sources. I see plenty of trivial mentions in relation to various people and some press releases, but not that much coverage from sources that are both independent and reliable. This might be redirectable to the comic book artist Joe Shuster, but in the case that there are sources I've missed, I'm bringing it to AfD. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep: unquestionable disruption. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not Notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijustice2013 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Whether or not a redirect is warranted should be the subject of further discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things made up one day on Tumblr. Mangoe (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 04:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clear fork of List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups - possibly a POV fork. StAnselm (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This also will help keep a handful of the entries from needing a standalone article of their own if the only thing notable about them is that they are designated as hate groups. Every delete and suppress discussion so far has generally upheld that the hate group designation is notable criticisms of the group yet nom and a few others exacerbate the situation so RFCs are being held on no less than 6 articles. Sorry, these groups are considered hate groups and now the world will be able to see that for themselves. Insomesia (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. A potential merge can be discussed on article talkpage, but with the sources and arguments provided, this is a pretty uncontentious Keep. Yunshui 雲水 12:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as essay-like and lacking proper sourcing since 2009, not rectified. This is basically 50% dictionary definition and 50% POV fork. "Salutogenesis" is a bullshit term akin to "wellness" used by SCAMmers because it sounds sciencey. It has no actual objective meaning. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]