Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HeartSpeak

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. ST47 (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HeartSpeak

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Overtly promotional article. The substance of which is a recreation of content which has been deleted several times previously. The recreated material is as problematic now as when it was at the time of those previous deletions. Namely that it still falls short of WP:PROMO, WP:GNG and related guidelines. The apparent multiaccount abuse, and WP:PAID overtones here are also more than a little disquieting.

By way of elaboration on my concerns on GNG/RS, I would note that, of the three "references" offered to support the promotional text in the opening, the:

first "ref" is an obvious advert for the subject and doesn't meet WP:RS by a country mile
second is Urban Dictionary for goodness sake. A WP:UGC website. And, if that weren't disqualifying enough, the 'definition' offered by Urban Dictionary has nothing to do with the subject in question here
third ref is a journal publication from ~100 years ago. Which doesn't include the term 'HeartSpeak' anywhere in its pages. Not to mind supporting the other claims made in this overtly promotional opening sentence. And, how could it, given that the advert which is offered as the first ref, states that 'HeartSpeak' was developed some time in the last ~25 years. (Unless the author of this 1920s journal article, JR Kantor was professor of timetravel (as well as psychology), this just doesn't stand up.)

I officially declare shenanigans. Guliolopez (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its previous deletions don't really matter in so much as they just show someone is determined to have this topic be included which is why this article is in an area under DS but doesn't actually address its notability or lack there of. However in this case, it should be deleted. This alternative medicine topic lacks any SNG or GNG criteria by which it is notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Am I allowed to do this after shenanigans have been officially declared? I've called shenanigans quite a few times myself but I am on untrod ground when it comes to them having been officially declared[reply]

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.