Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antagonist Perpetrated Aggression
- 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) 15:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Antagonist Perpetrated Aggression (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)
As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APA Tactical, more advertisement than notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article has no independent sources and its topic is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APA Tactical. The lack of both notability and sources, in addition to being redundant, support deletion. Papaursa (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as per notes here, it may be that sources exist to support this article, but not APA Tactical - the company run by the individual who developed the system. I will have a look for some references (and I understand the original author has said he would provide some). The original author has a clear conflict of interest and has openly (to his credit) acknowledged that in the AfD for APA Tactical. I think part of the issue may be that the original author could be considered an expert editor - one of the few people with expertise in this particular field. As such, he has created this system, developed this system and is providing information to the public about this system. That does not make his system inherently notable, nor does it circumvent WP:COI issues and it gets very close to WP:PROMO. But I think we do need to be careful about how we approach this. The product itself (the company) may not be notable, the person who invented it may not inherit notability from it but the system itself (in a non-commercial context) may be notable (which is what I understand the original author has suggested). I think any proposed references provided in an effort to justify Keeping this article should be verified by non-COI editors. Given the original author's conduct and approach thus far, I can't see that suggestion being a problem. If sources cannot be provided that allow the article to meet WP:GNG, then it should be Deleted. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two articles appear to about the same thing. There's no mention of a company at APA Tactical which starts "is a tactical force response and force protection system". The APA article starts "is a proven special force response system". 204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think the distinction they are trying to make it that one refers to the system / theory and the other is a commercialisation / training program for that system. I think. It is a little unclear. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree there may have been an attempt to distinguish the two, but the lack of independent sources (a link to wikibook, the organization's site, and a youtube video) fails to show me notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed and given the commitments to repairing the articles and the lack of activity since, I would be inclined to think that both cannot be fixed and so should be deleted. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the interest of good faith, I already userfied the other article for him, so he will have every chance to try to turn it into a real article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A good way forward I think - thanks. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the interest of good faith, I already userfied the other article for him, so he will have every chance to try to turn it into a real article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed and given the commitments to repairing the articles and the lack of activity since, I would be inclined to think that both cannot be fixed and so should be deleted. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree there may have been an attempt to distinguish the two, but the lack of independent sources (a link to wikibook, the organization's site, and a youtube video) fails to show me notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think the distinction they are trying to make it that one refers to the system / theory and the other is a commercialisation / training program for that system. I think. It is a little unclear. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two articles appear to about the same thing. There's no mention of a company at APA Tactical which starts "is a tactical force response and force protection system". The APA article starts "is a proven special force response system". 204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As such, Delete. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No independent sources to support notability claims. This and APA Tactical are the same subject. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:34, 6 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.