Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPlant

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. The consensus is that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The policy on no original research is also cited. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPlant[edit]

The only meaningful source for this article is a personal web site. The article was created by IPlant (talk · contribs). I expressed my discomfort about the article to the creator, but was willing to ignore it as long as it was unobtrusive. Now however, a brand new account, nonlinearity (talk · contribs), has begun to spam wikilinks to the article into a variety of neuroscience articles, so it needs to go. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entry had been marked orphan so I added links from the deep brain stimulation, brain implant, brain pacemaker, cognotechnology and wirehead entries because they seem directly related. Nonlinearity (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'm not really convinced of the sources. I think WP:V and WP:N should be looked at carefully for this one. Renaissancee (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources mentions the topic of the article except the first one, which is the author's personal web site, and the Huffington Post ones, which were created by the author. Looie496 (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR, don't see any wiggle room here. Drawn Some (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Looie496 (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without independent sources this article has no place here. (AGF when Looie says no use of the term in the refs, no reason not to). Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A fictional device from a non-notable piece of science fiction. Whether this is original research, crystal ball-gazing, or non-notable fiction is left as an exercise for the student. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional device, with no notablity. Just the result of a self-publicist student. I fail to see why it wasn't deleted earlier. Fences and windows (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[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.