Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson Church


 * 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. The situation seems clear  DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Dawson Church

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biographical page with no assertion of notability; sources include interviews and publisher pages for the subject's books, nothing in independent, reliable sources. In particular, does not pass WP:PROF as a "researcher on energy fields". Recently removed "sources" included "search for this on pubmed" and a single primary source conducted by the page's subject. We do not have a wikipedia page for everybody who has ever published a journal article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not pass any of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. He is not an WP:ACADEMIC; he has a pseudo-doctorate from a non-accredited "university", and Google Scholar finds only a few, minimally cited publications. Does not pass WP:GNG; Google News Archive found only articles about churches, nothing about this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK.  In fact, there is no WP:RS whatsoever.  Looks strictly like WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2012 (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.