This article has already been put up for deletion and it should be again.

1) It uses references which point to self-published data which is unreliable and unsubstantiated;

2) There is nothing notable contained therein.

The WikiUsers djworrell and Mmyotis have been active in the editing and defence of this article in discussions. However, the former is an administrator at two of the websites used as references (Sustained Action/Sustained Reaction) and the latter is 'esteemed councilman' at one of them (Sustained Reaction).

These two editors have a vested interest in posting links to these websites. This alone goes against Wiki policy.

89.240.170.15 (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet this has somehow lasted three and a half years? I'll have to look at the deletion discussion. --tronvillain (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A dispute about rights to use certain information was included in the article. It ended with a statement that the originators of the dispute had founded their own organization, with a link to their organization's website. Cleargreen is notable because of its founder's stature. No other reason. The offshoot organization has no such notability, and including a link to their organization is covert advertising. This info has been deleted. Tapered (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been years, but WP:INHERITORG,"An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable.", and WP:ORGCRIT: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." --tronvillain (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current reflist contains two links which both lead to self-published blog websites (Sustained Action/Reaction). Both links should be removed. 89.240.171.150 (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that this article was previous AfD. Since it clearly does not meet the notability guidelines based on my investigation and that of others due to the tag on it. So the question is what do we do with the thing?Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do a bold redirect to Castaneda or send it to AfD again I suppose. Looking at the previous AfD (which ended "no consensus"), the sources supporting keep were almost entirely incidental mentions in pieces about Castaneda. --tronvillain (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna try a redirect. The Afd I put up got reverted nearly immediately. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was WP:PROD, not WP:AFD. A previous AfD makes the page ineligible for proposed deletion, but given that it's been six years, nothing prevents another AfD. --tronvillain (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]