Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCOAP


 * 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 both. Michig (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

SCOAP

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is about a non-notable neuro-hype "model" that forms the basis for various money-making training/coaching programs Jytdog (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they were created by the same user, who per this has completed the SCOAP training and per this "I want employers to see what my SCOAP Certification and training (delivered by this foundation) means". Editor is a WP:SPA for all things related to SCOAP. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion of editors who take training courses nor the training courses. Other articles are under consideration for speedy and those that survive, I will add here...


 * Since the topic of this page has scientific pretensions, I'm going to treat it as such and recommend deletion. Sources are all affiliated. Browsing the academic search engines and databases by their "cited by" links, I found only two third-party publications that cite any of these sources: one is this book chapter, the other is this book. That's not enough. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 08:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For SCOAP-Profile, Merge or delete as an insufficiently notable topic on its own. It seems like a component of SCOAP, an article about the model where the profiling according to the model could be discussed. Therefore, I would support merging to that article if that article survives, or else deleting as a non-notable component of a non-notable parent topic if that article is deleted. DMacks (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete both Vanity pieces by user who wants to promote themselves by promoting their qualification. Fail WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons noted above.
 * Delete per above. As I noted elsewhere, a Google search of the acronym turns up other more common uses, not a strong endorsement for notability here. 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably keep SCOAP. and merge in SCOAP profile. It will depend on how many other people have written about it. which will need checking. The article contents itself is not in my opinion promotional--if it turns out the theory is notable. Even if someone with promotional intend write a descriptive article on something impt, the article should be kept, the the intent when --as here -- it can be proven can be a factor to consider. At AfD we judge articles, not authors.   DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Agree with DGG that article is not written in a promotional way, but I could not find substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Also not seeing sufficient sources to satisfy any relevant notability criteria. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:44, 11 July 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.