Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cidney Fisk

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cidney Fisk

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

At best, the lawsuit could some day be notable. She definitely isn't, and unless something else occurs to make her such, she won't be per WP:BLP1E John from Idegon (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly a non-notable individual. The article also has serious violations of NPOV.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. The content looks to me as if she sent her Statement of Claim for the court to two local newspapers which may then have interviewed her. The article this projects only her POV, not that of the school board and other entities sued. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. New Atheism is dead and atheism related news is typically getting weak/zero coverage. She has no significant news coverage from reliable sources. She has no backing from ACLU or a national atheist organization. desmay (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most deletes here appear to be from self-declared Christians. Peterkingiron being the exception. Please note that Christians have a history of hostility to Atheists.

Note: above comment made by Jmv2009, the article creator. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, also may be WP:TOOSOON. ps. i don't know about being a Christian, but i do like bunnies Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 3 January 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.