Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Applied Foresight Network

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Foresight Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced, no evidence it meets WP:ORG. Basic WP:BEFORE shows no mentions in mainstream RSes; GBooks shows largely reprints of Wikipedia pages and some passing mentions. Tagged as unreferenced since June 2015, no sign of remedying since. I'm actually surprised not to be able to find good sources ... perhaps someone else's filter bubble will be kinder. David Gerard (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless supporting references are added soon - Article has zero supporting references. If strong independent sources can be added, article can be further reviewed. Topic may be notable per guidelines but hard to evaluate.GreenMountainGate (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock. MER-C 13:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • yeah, they feel like the sort of org there should be something on - David Gerard (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ping @Deku-shrub: would you know any solid RSes on this one? - David Gerard (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a virtual academic network for futurists. Most futurists have specialisms outside of pure futurism hence it may typically take a back seat. I don't see evidence it's still active, I think it stopped in 2011. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1823144 The text is likely even too much for H+Pedia. It may deserve a mention in past and present academic futurist networks but it appears to have produced very little independent output beyond it's closed site and wikipedia page. I'm guessing the original article was created promotionally. The site is closed. https://web.archive.org/web/20080128021644/http://www.appliedforesight.org/contact.html I have not mapped enough of these academic networks to understand their relative significance yet Deku-shrub (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this lovingly-crafted advertorial. Guy (Help!) 08:36, 25 October 2016 (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.