Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smarter Lunchroom Movement


 * 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Smarter Lunchroom Movement

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Blatant academic spam, mostly sourced to press releases and other SPS, created by aWP:SPA editor who has done nothing but dump garbage like this into our beautiful project. There could perhaps be an article on this, but this is industrial waste. Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The last six references are from reliable sources. The topic seems notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It may be notable but it would have to be completely rewritten to not be an advertisement. Your removal of the speedy tag, cursory editing, and !vote here leave pollution in Wikipedia. Does "inclusionism" really mean including garbage?  Does your vision of a national park include oozing barrels of industrial waste?
 * This is pure, disgusting hard selling by people promoting the "so-called "movement" -- "The movement has received coverage by major media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, The Huffington Post and NPR[8][9][10] and has inspired changes at local, corporate and legislative levels."
 * The civil rights movement was a movement. The title, that sentence, and most of the rest, is putrid marketing dumped into Wikipedia. Disgusting.  Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * here are the "sources"
 * SPS spam
 * SPS spam
 * SPS spam
 * SPS spam
 * SPS spam
 * SPS spam
 * SPS spam
 * OKish, but see below
 * promotional blog about new book
 * OKish, but see below
 * Forbes contributor - doesn't count toward N
 * local news 1st step
 * local news 2nd step


 * About the "see below" - the research hyped in the NPR and WSJ refs is from a lab that had six papers retracted and 13 or 14 corrections issued after the lab was found to be p hacking and otherwise skewing their data to generate papers, that they then excelled in hyping.  See retraction watch here and this buzzfeed story.
 * So what are the putative great refs here to even try to build an article with, if somebody felt like carting out the industrial waste and trying to make an actual WP article here? Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't find susbstantial coverage of the program in RS, only brief mentions (I can't check the WSJ source admittedly). Combined with the COI issues, deleting is the only option. SmartSE (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an advertisement. Natureium (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2018 (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.