Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspire for Life


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Aspire for Life

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

While this is a well written and sourced article (it should be, it's by professional researchers), the programme appears to have no independent notability at this point. Which reduces it to being a promotional article for a new entity created by a SPA whose username correlates to one of the team members listed on the Aspire website. To put it bluntly, spam. I have no objection to recreation by neutral parties once the programme has significant independent coverage. dramatic (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No coverage in secondary sources.  Zero google news hits, zero related google scholar hits, nothing relevant on Lexis-Nexis.  I always hate to call for the deletion of an apparently well-sourced article, but this seems to just exist as something like an advertisement at the moment. It may well become notable in the future as per nom. Cool3 (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
 * Keep, subject/result of two research studies, one by a university.. Significant coverage in Nutrition News, the Bakers bulletin. XLerate (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, subject/result of two research studies, one by a university.. Significant coverage in Nutrition News, the Bakers bulletin. XLerate (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No independent mainstream coverage of the Aspire program itself, only academic references to the original research programme, which is not the main topic of the article. . . Rcawsey (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are no reliable sources on the product itself, which is purportedly the subject of the article. Double Blue  (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2009 (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.