Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Practice Provider Executives


 * 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Advanced Practice Provider Executives

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I've already removed some refs that were published by the group and some made-up refs. I'm unable to find the following refs anywhere via Google, WorldCat or the publisher's own website. What's left is some valid refs that don't talk about the organization and the organization's own refs. I'm not seeing anything that would make the group notable. The article may have been done by a paid contributor. Bgwhite (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) “Stanford Hospital & Clinic’s Center for Advanced Practice and Advanced Practice Leadership” (2013). Bay Area Non-Docs (BAND) meeting, Feb 2013; Menlo Park, CA
 * 1) “Stanford Hospital & Clinic’s Center for Advanced Practice and Advanced Practice Leadership” (2013). Bay Area Non-Docs (BAND) meeting, Feb 2013; Menlo Park, CA
 * 1) “Stanford Hospital & Clinic’s Center for Advanced Practice and Advanced Practice Leadership” (2013). Bay Area Non-Docs (BAND) meeting, Feb 2013; Menlo Park, CA
 * 1) “Stanford Hospital & Clinic’s Center for Advanced Practice and Advanced Practice Leadership” (2013). Bay Area Non-Docs (BAND) meeting, Feb 2013; Menlo Park, CA
 * delete no indication of notability. Dubious references. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 01:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. At the point where an article is being supported by fraudulent references, it loses the assumption of good faith. Even extremely permissive WorldCat searches fail to find anything like any of those purported books. Bloomsbury's site has no indication of having published anything under any remotely similar title, or by any author by that name. The same goes for the CRC Press book. It's harder to be certain with Cengage (because their searches aren't forthcoming for out-of-print material), but their website still returns nothing remotely similar, and WorldCat agrees. I don't think this organization is notable to begin with, but given the amount of sourcing fraud here, I'd suggest blowing it up regardless (and quite possibly sanctioning the editor responsible, absent some ameliorating explanation). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I came to the same conclusion about the sources - all the "independent" ones look faked or unverifiable. The editor appears to be a sock of a blocked editor, so we could probably go with G5, but handling it through AfD is likely to be best. I did look for alternative sources, but haven't found anything beyond press releases and non-independent sources. - Bilby (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons mentioned above. BakerStMD T&#124;C 23:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Generic corporate spam. Article reads like cut/paste dump from PR. Pax 08:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.