Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iaoco

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. Cirt (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iaoco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

Non-notable organization. No google news hits. Only google web hits are to the organization itself, web rating services, or press releases from chiropractors who have been "honored". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not seeing any substantial reliable source coverage in my good faith searches. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, full name gives 65 Google hits. Abductive (reasoning) 08:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE This article appears to be self-promotion in contravention of Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines (WP:COI). Moreover, it and its associated articles (i.e., Dr. Stephen J. Press and Sports chiropractic) appear to also be self-promotion in that they promote the field in which the subject of the related autobiograpy earns his livelihood also in contravention of WP:COI. There is an interconnectedness between these three articles that raises a red flag as regards Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines. Alternatively, the article does not establish notability as per WP:ORG. Further, inasmuch as it cites anything, it seems to cite self-published sources, and the organization it purports to be about in contravention of WP:SELFPUB and perhaps even WP:CIRCULAR. Finally, in order to retain the article, it desperately needs reliable, verifiable, properly cited, third-party sources. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2009 (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.