Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron J. Fink


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Aaron J. Fink

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Biography of a person wholly unnotable. The article merely summarises the person's viewpoint of a medical topic he wrote in a book. A significant chunk of the latter part of the article is completely unrelated to the person. --TBM10 (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think this is actually a hoax/joke page rather than merely non-notable. Googling the tract he supposedly authored just shows mirrors of this articles (or Books LLC publications that just take content from Wikipedia). If you look at the earliest edits, it definitely looks like a hoax. Seems like someone didn't like Aaron J. Fink, and thus made up an elaborate joke around the topic of botched circumcisions. --JamesAM (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the book title in the article. You should find that searches lead to more sources now. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Looking at the Gbooks hits, there are independent sources. This appears to be a real person who has held this view for several years now. Whether he and his views are notable is a separate question, of course, but this does not seem to be a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF, based on available sources. Without good sources, this will just be another coatrack for the circumcision dispute. MastCell Talk 00:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of established notability, I didn't get anything on my websearch either. SwisterTwister   talk  05:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Are the "delete" proponents above seeing something different from me when they check the Google Books search link spoon-fed in the nomination? When I click it the second and third results are impeccably reliable sources with significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Jakew (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.