Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Human Interaction Lab


 * 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 keep. The nominator has withdrawn, and there are no delete !votes present. North America1000 02:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Virtual Human Interaction Lab

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Blatently promotional, mostly created by a clear COI account according to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Virtual_Human_Interaction_Lab and I've today reverted more promotional content. Might be best at the COI board, but wanted to get the opinion of AfD people. A quick search shows it's notable, but I suspect the article should be restarted from scratch. Joe (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think I've saved this page from WP:TNT, at the very least. It involved cutting out possibly most of the bla bla. I also tried to inline some of the academic (sans url) sources in the references section, but I don't have the patience for that full effort at this point. I wouldn't object if someone else wanted to just delete them. But the page passes GNG, it seems. I'm unsure if it passes WP:CORPDEPTH? I'll do some additional research, although based on Joe's statement, at the very least a partial merge to Stanford might be appropriate. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note. After becoming acclimated with the page's Wiki markup, I can safely observe that the posting editor(s) is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's stylistic norms and strong guidelines concerning editing with a bias. I would recommend they do some research on both matters, and modify future editing accordingly. In the case of this page, that would likely necessitate admitting a conflict of interest (not personal details, there are strong security reasons for keeping identity to yourself), and then requesting on a topic's talk page that an unbiased editor screen your requests and implement changes on your behalf. If talk page response is slow, all editors can also be pinged on their personal IP or account talk pages. Good luck, and welcome to Wikipedia! 66.198.222.67 (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. There seems to be enough coverage. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. - it's been heavily rewritten since the nomination. I still find it overly promotional, but I'm happy to withdraw the nomination Joe (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has enought sources for WP:GNG. Could definatetly do with a clean-up. Britishfinance (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2019 (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.