Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naturoid
WP:N, #OR, . I don't think that the Nature article alone is evidential of the subject's notability. Google Scholar and Google Books results, which are mainly written by M. Negrotti himself, show no signs of ''nontrivial coverage by reliable secondary sources independent of the subject''. As discussed above, some parts of the article are misleading and unverifiable. The article has the appearance of being well-sourced, but from what I can tell, practically none of the independent sources discuss the subject in any detail. A number of pruned Google Web searches like http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%22Naturoid%22+-wiki+-wikipedia+-amazon+-%22as+defined+by+the+Theory+of+Naturoids%22&start=100 return about 150-200 unique results with no apparent signs of significant coverage by  sources
— User:Rankiri, 16:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NOT||WP:SYNTH||WP:RS (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)