Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RMAX

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. - Bobet 15:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RMAX

Spam, PRODed but contested by article creator. Non-notable entity, top Googles are for Wikipedia articles and unrelated sites. Rife with neologisms and crypto-scientific terms trying to disguise the fact that this is just one guy's pet theory. Article on Scott Sonnon also nominated, immediately below. Herostratus 15:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, or redirect to Scott Sonnon, if that article survives the AfD. Dsreyn 16:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as this does not meet WP:CORP, though a redirect to Scott Sonnon might be a workable solution as well.--Isotope23 20:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep fine to redirect to Scott Sonnon as a workable solution as well. However, initial comments of this being spam are just unfounded, as are claims of "neologisms" and "crytpo-scientific" terms. Herostratus has made his way to everything regarding this guy, and it's starting to sound like a personal agenda. Sonnon's a Ph.D. in Health and Physical Education, a former USA national martial arts team coach in Sambo who has been featured even on the cover of World of Martial Arts Magazine (May 1999), is a frequent presenter for the National Strength Coaches Association, and noted author in his field. Perhaps he ain't recognized by the masses like burlesque shows like Tony Little and Richard Simmons, but he is recognized in the professional sports field and has signed testimonials on his website [1]] from notable athletes like Egan Inoue 2x world raquetball champion, Holly Rustick, Ms. Fitness Hawaii, Andrei Arlovski, UFC Heavyweight Champion, SSG. Matthew Larsen, USA ARMY Combatives School, and so on. I think that qualifies the guy to use scientific terms, or even contribute new jargon to his field. --B-ham 21:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. From WP:AFD: Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article. Dsreyn 00:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Per our Wikipedia:No original research policy, Wikipedia is not for new contributions to any field until they can be shown to have been acknowledged by people other than their creators and become part of the corpus of human knowledge. This article links to the web site of the inventor of this health system, but cites no other sources at all. If you want to demonstrate that this article is not original research, please cite sources where people independent of the inventor have written about this health system. (Testimonials published on the inventor's web site are not independent of the inventor, note.) Uncle G 01:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • As I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RMAX International, creating another article on the same topic with a slight variation on the name is not citing sources. Uncle G 09:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G.--Peta 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with that guy. Kappa 06:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with RMAX International which is an exact template of Dragon Door Publications which has never been contested. --B-ham 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. First, you already "voted" above; it has already be pointed out to you elsewhere that this is considered bad AfD etiquette. Please read the sections "AfD etiquette" and "How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette" on WP:AFD. In any case, the entry for Dragon Door Publications that has "never been contested" has only existed for seven hours, so it's a bit misleading to make that statement. However, it is now also listed in AfD, since it's a recreation of a previously deleted entry under a new name. Dsreyn 03:35, 8 September 2006 (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.