Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NAFOD


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

NAFOD

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be a non-notable neologism. A search under Google Scholar only turned up Gordon's paper (the main source used in the article), which appears to be primary research. In the article, Gordon states that there are almost no references to the term. The other sources currently used are unreliable (Everything2 and the Rice database reference), and a single passing mention in a Powerpoint slide that is missing context. A search under Google didn't turn up anything extra, although there were a few press releases from Gordon and other promotional work mentioning the term and his paper. Google Books gives two hits, neither of which seems substantive. It is possible that Gordon's paper will end up having an impact, but at this stage the acronym appears to be non-notable. Bilby (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete topic currently fails WP:GNG. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 06:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 I don't see how the PowerPoint presentation from the USN is missing context. I included it as an example of the US Navy's recognition of the term, and Capt Wear's use of it makes clear that the term is known to the Navy. If anything his casual use of it suggests it's quite widely known; he didn't feel the need to explain what it meant.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Added another reference to show current (although non-medical) use of the term.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Article still fails WP:NEO. Please refer to that policy.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The difficulty with the PowerPoint is that it only includes a passing mention that doesn't make the connection to the article as written. The article is currently predominately about Gordon's theory of a personality disorder, which relies entirely on primary sources. Gordon appears to be actively promoting his concept, but it lacks any coverage in secondary sources, and the single, passing reference in the PowerPoint doesn't seem to have anything to do with Gordon's discussion - however it is hard to tell, as it is very much a brief aside. The couple of sources independent of Gordon make only a passing reference to the term, and Gordon himself notes that it is almost never used. - Bilby (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  23:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete The article is a guess. "it appears," "not in any official publications," "two anecdotes ... recounted," "reportedly," "not currently recoginised," the US Navy's beliefs, without a source, of course, a psychiatrist's "beliefs," also, while he is "working on a formal definition." It is sourced to a single primary research article, a blog?, and a powerpoint. Insufficient. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2013 (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.