Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In-depth sensory analysis


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 00:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

In-depth sensory analysis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The described method, while based solidly in science described in the cited journal articles, appears to be used only by a single entity (the Institute for Sensory Analysis) as a market research tool. The title "in-depth sensory analysis" itself is too broad for an article, and the specific use described in this article is of too limited a scope to be encyclopedic. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete In addition to the rationale expressed by the nominator the article appears to me to be an advert for the sole laboratory concerned. Research has led me to consider the creating editor to be firmly associated with that laboratory and thus to have placed this as clever and careful PR material for the lab (0.9 probability). While I proposed it initially for renaming I have come to the conclusion that a full discussion here is the better route. I can be persuaded otherwise if the article is made to be generic and thus POV and COI are removed from the equation. Ping me if that takes place and I will revisit my !vote. Fiddle   Faddle  16:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 09:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 07:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that this article seems to have been a 'fire and forget' article. The original editor appears to have no interest in it and it does appear, rather, to be spam, albeit reasonably subtle spam. It would be disappointing were this to close as no consensus even if relisting generates no further opinions. Fiddle   Faddle  14:36, 22 February 2014 (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.