Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleios


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 11:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Teleios

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability per WP:ORG, mostly an opinion essay per WP:OR with highly promotional tone: speedy-deleted twice recently, A7 and G11. Referenced by their web page, plus a lot of apparently unrelated journal citations in support of the organisation's beliefs and goals per WP:SYNTHESIS. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. OnionRing (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not entirely sure what this is, but it doesn't seem to be a topic suitable for coverage on Wikipedia.  Nor is the primary research of much use at Wikipedia.  Examples of things not in the article are the date of incorporation, number of staff, and gross annual revenue.  Google scholar had a few hits, .  Unscintillating (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither the article nor the website even mentions where they are. I'm guessing from the "Inc." that they're based in the U.S., but the contact page only offers an Outlook.com email address, and I can find no incorporation details for an organisation of that name.
 * There is a street address on one of the Media subpages of their website that shows them to be in South Carolina, US. Unscintillating (talk) 07:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. OnionRing (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and SALT THE EARTH: Obvious OR is obvious. I'm also unimpressed with the titanic list of sources that very carefully do not mention the subject at all.  Nha Trang  Allons! 20:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:GNG, WP:PROMO - No significant coverage in reliable sources. Seems to be a promotional or opinion piece. -- Taketa (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete; I can't find any coverage in secondary sources. Single purpose account created this article five minutes after creating their account. There's no reason to believe this group is in anyway notable. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt This is using Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. Also, any conclusions from scientific studies is mostly likely biased to support this organization's views; here is page discussing their research: which consists of "a series of prospectively planned studies and medical literature reviews". In any case, no significant coverage in reliable sources is available. Also, since this page keeps getting recreated after deletions I recommend salting this page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2016 (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.