Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Informing science

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 (WP:SNOW). Geschichte (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Informing science

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Bringing this to AfD after discussion at WP:COIN. Badly PoV article, written by CoI/PAID editors and cited (albeit with no footnotes) to sources published by the organisation which it promotes. The subject appears to be a neologism, promoted by the founder of that organisation; the organisation is a publisher which appears on the updated Beall's list (of "predatory open-access publishers"; see [1]).

If we need an article on this subject; this is not it, and WP:TNT should apply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not obvious to me that there should be an article on this, but it is clear that there's no way to get from this article to anything resembling a legit WP article without going through far more work than it would take to create something from scratch. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very hard to determine if this has any notability outside its own walled garden of self-serving sources. If there was ever a case for WP:TNT, this is surely it. Edwardx (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --SVTCobra 21:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Turgidly written, COI through and through, and frankly egotistical. No, you don't get to call your own article "seminal"; go away now. I'll echo the comment by Zeromonk over at COIN, in that I'd never heard of this group despite having been active for years in circles where I would have heard if they had done something noteworthy. Trying to find third-party sources backs up that impression. XOR'easter (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a coatrack for a Informing Science Institute brochure. TNT. MarioGom (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are some citations of related topics, but it shows some signs of being a walled garden, and notability is questionable. WP:TNT applies in any case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. scope_creep^Talk 17:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't decide if this is more like a brochure, a prospectus or a textbook. It is certainly not encyclopedic. TNT is the most appropriate avenue. --- Possibly ☎ 21:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a spoof. Boud (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. This is not for Wikipedia. Get some better sources (and actual third-party discourse) and come back. jps (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2021 (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.