- 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. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
StopAfib[edit]
- StopAfib (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)
Promotional article that fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Article has lots of sources that do not establish notability. Sources 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12,15, and 17 are self-authored. Sources 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, and 16 are passing mentions. Google News search mainly turned up press releases. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, submitted by a sockpuppet of a blocked user, which is technically enough reason to delete it right now. DS (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would disagree: Jacob Pabst and the sockmaster only got blocked after these edits were made, and we should think twice before applying G5 retrospectively, because it's framed in terms of block/ban evasion - how can somebody contravene a block or ban which does not yet exist? bobrayner (talk) 22:21, 3 November 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.