Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Hammond (circumcision activist)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hammond (circumcision activist)

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

Orphan article with a few weak references added in 2012 after a BLP-PROD. No visible demonstration of notability. Scott Davis ^Talk 23:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article wholy inadequate to either source a BLP with or prove notability. ^{Cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Circumcision is an important issue and Tim Hammond has been a major activist to shed light on its disadvantages for decades now and has written books on the subjects and is a constant presence in conferences dealing with the matter. There are media references even in 2017 where he is widely quoted as a reliable well-informed source, so he is very relevant and notable on the subject. I feel the reference links in the article we have are quite acceptable as well. werldwayd (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yeah, yeah, circumcision is an important issue. What does that have to do with anything? It's longstanding practice that quotes from a subject are not independent and can't be used to bolster the notability of a subject, so we're left with a handful of soggy, unreliable refs. The GNG requires that the subject receive significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, and we need quality ones for ANY BLP. None have been produced over the course of many years now for this guy. There are a lot of worthy activists in the world, but they're not entitled to Wikipedia articles. Neither is this fellow, so the article should be ... cut. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2018 (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.