Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination)
per #G4; in the alternative '''delete''' or '''merge''' with Robert Prechter.   ("An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material"),  ("publication by itself is not a sufficient (and sometimes not necessary) standard for encyclopedic notability."), and, most critically : "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."  Severe  problems, too.  As the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics|first AFD nomination documented assiduously, the "third party, independent, reliable sources" are largely imaginary or neither third-party nor independent, and, in any event, too rare to qualify as |notable.  , too.   Per , there already exists an ancillary article, Robert Prechter: every single one of the supposed reliable sources mentioned that I've checked so far was really about or by Prechter (or not about socionomics at all).  And I'd like to see some administrative investigation: why was the same editor with a severe COI who disruptively and decisively lost an AFD after being found to have faked evidence allowed to recreate the same article without Wikipedia:Deletion review|going through the administrative processes for reversing a decision or notifying the people who voted for its deletion
— User:TedFrank, 12:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:CSD||WP:NEO||WP:SCI||WP:WEIGHT||WP:COI||WP:N||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:WEIGHT (Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion)