- 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 redirect to aerotoxic syndrome. Since content has been merged, licensing as I understand it requires we retain the history by redirecting. Shimeru (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AOPIS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Orphaned article apparently set up for soapboxing by a single purpose account. Article has not expanded beyond stub since it was started in Oct 2006, and has had virtually no copyediting apart from tagging. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added some sources to the article that verify notability. Because of my current AN3 involvement in related matters, I won't vote here. SilverserenC 19:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, however I don't feel that these references address the fact that this article has been an orphaned stub for 3.5 years; its single paragraph amounts to an acronym definition, and would therefore be better placed as a brief mention in the aerotoxic syndrome article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But the sources have enough information for the article to be expanded so it is more than just an acronym definition. SilverserenC 23:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing how any potential expansion of this article will not involve a content fork of aerotoxic syndrome. So suggest that anything relevant is moved to there, and if sufficient content is established at some point in the future, then consideration be given at that time to spinning off a separate article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how an article about a group can be a content fork for a syndrome. The group works in order to raise awareness and get information out about Aerotoxic syndrome, but that doesn't make it a content fork of that article about the syndrome. Where exactly would you put this information in that article? It's not about groups that are advocating for it. SilverserenC 23:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I disagree. A few lines in a new section in the Aerotoxic syndrome article about lobbying and pressure groups would be completely appropriate. I've gone ahead and created the new section, copying in the relevant prose from this article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you going to do if this AfD ends in Keep? SilverserenC 08:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I disagree. A few lines in a new section in the Aerotoxic syndrome article about lobbying and pressure groups would be completely appropriate. I've gone ahead and created the new section, copying in the relevant prose from this article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how an article about a group can be a content fork for a syndrome. The group works in order to raise awareness and get information out about Aerotoxic syndrome, but that doesn't make it a content fork of that article about the syndrome. Where exactly would you put this information in that article? It's not about groups that are advocating for it. SilverserenC 23:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing how any potential expansion of this article will not involve a content fork of aerotoxic syndrome. So suggest that anything relevant is moved to there, and if sufficient content is established at some point in the future, then consideration be given at that time to spinning off a separate article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: appears to fail coverage test. Set up in 2001, so one would expect at least passing mentions in Australian media findable on the internet. No mentions as acronym or with full name The Australian, for example.
Plenty of AOPIS online coverage. AOPIS website itself - or rather, the site it is a sly front door to - would appear to be a possible candidate for inclusion as an external link in the aerotoxic syndrome article subject, subject to EL vetting. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2010 (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.