Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual quotient


 * 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 speedy delete. Deleted as a G12 copyvio. Primefac (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Spiritual quotient

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason Eturk001 (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The article was flagged for multiple issues in April 2016. Those were not addressed by any other editors. Recent suggestion on talk page is to delete the article as it does not seem to be a notable topic. The page may have been created as a promotion as 3 citations were to a company PDF.

I do have a concern about deletion, rather than improvement, in that the further reading sections does include 4 books specifically on the topic. It could just be that this is a fringe pseudoscience topic not demanding an encyclopedia article. Eturk001 (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV and WP:V. It's an almost completely unsourced WP:PROFRINGE essay that, assuming the subject is notable (not a given), would have to be completely rewritten from scratch. It's not worth the effort. Nuke it and if someone thinks the subject is notable enough for an article they can start with a blank slate and do it right, with proper sources and appropriate respect for FRINGE and WP:DUE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: Per reasons mentioned above. I looked for sources, but it seems extraordinarily unlikely there could ever be an article written on this topic for WP. Delta13C (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks independent sources to establish notability that would warrant a stand alone article. Also 100% of the text is a WP:COPYVIO copypasted from and  - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * iNuke it from orbit. and WP:COPYVIO should be immediately removed. Should I do it while this discussion is open? Roxy the dog. bark 17:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the article for CSD per G12. I am not going to nuke it myself as I am INVOLVED here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2017 (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.