Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal Nurse Investigator

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 all.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Nurse Investigator

Non-notable profession, article started by Rnmarket whose sole mission on Wikipedia is apparently to advertise for his legal nurse marketing company of the same name. I am also nominating the following articles, also started by the same person, in this AfD:

• National Alliance of Certified Legal Nurse Consultants - fails WP:CORP
• Vickie Milazzo - fails WP:BIO
• Certified legal nurse investigator - fails WP:SPAM, covert advertising for the LNI Institute mentioned in the article
• RN MARKET - fails WP:CORP
• LNC STAT - non-notable publication by RN Market

Note that yet another of this user's creations, Veronica Castellana, was speedied as CSD A7; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Castellana. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 10:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all neologistic adspam. And thanks to the nominator for the amusing message on my talk page in regards to this nomination. =) Powers ^T 14:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Good work getting all these. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as per nom. wikipediatrix 15:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete all, crypto-spam from a consulting business. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. IceCreamAntisocial 20:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Resolute 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom.-- danntm ^T _C 00:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all I abhor spam and this certainly looks like it. However, is it an accredited course and recognised at all? As a foreigner I can't tell, but the article contains the assertion legitimately use the term 'legal nurse investigator' and the term certification course. Is "certification course" accredited by Government or some professional body? It doesn't look like it from their own site but I just thought it is perhaps worth pausing to check. For example, I know that there is certification for Software testing, articles on two of the accreditations, ISEB and the newer ISTQB, would seem to me to be legitimate articles. I am not sure that that would pass the test I have set, that is they are not government accredited, but I think they are verifiable externally, for example accreditation is called for in job advertisements [1]. Shouldn't that be the test? External refs to the LNI profession are few and far between. I googled up only one: [2]--Arktos ^talk 00:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the profession Legal nurse consultant exists and we have an article on it. The not-for-profit American Association of Legal Nurse Consultants is the membership organization for the profession the USA. It is a profession that requires no certification, as the AALNC FAQ page states. The subject of this debate is a for-profit company marketing a product to registered nurses that they do not really need. A "Legal Nurse Investigator" is just a legal nurse consultant who has paid large sums of money to take this course and get its expensive and unnecessary "diploma", and membership in the inappropriately named "National Alliance of Certified Legal Nurse Consultants" is limited only to people who have paid large sums of money to take this course. SPAM! IceCreamAntisocial 02:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmmm - I do understand and am not trying to be obtuse but there are many professions or vocations for which you do not HAVE to get accreditation. Accountancy is one, software testing is another. You have to pay sums of money if you choose accreditation. We do have articles on those occupation's accrediation. I think the test is probably whether the accreditation is recognised elsewhere. Otherwise the same argument could apply to CPA. Whether or not the training adds value, is needed, ... is POV - is it recognised outside should be the test.--Arktos ^talk 02:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have just AfD'd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal nurse consultant, for similar reasons.

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.