Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diabetes, sexuality and pregnancy


 * 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. OR, CV, nonsense, how-to etc Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Diabetes, sexuality and pregnancy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

clearly an original research with no significance and sourcing Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - WP:FORUM Definitely a rambling personal essay based on OR, with the "resource" at the bottom being, according to Google, a site in Turkey whose registration has expired. — Maile (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete This appears to be a translation (a bad machine translation) of a Turkish pamphlet on the stated topic. At best, it violates WP:NOTHOW. At worst, it's a WP:COPYVIO. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Further, based on information at User:Namun01/sandbox, the article appears to be little more than a WP:COATRACK upon which to hang links to the author's own website in an attempt to drive traffic to his site. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Question What may be criteria for Speedy in this case? My A7 had been declined, so I've nominated it for deletion. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, none of the standard speedy deletion criteria apply (although, given the extremely low quality of the translation, G1 (patent nonsense or gibberish) might apply). However, an AFD can conclude that speedy deletion (per the WP:SNOWBALL] clause) applies. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Rambling nonsense. I can't see any way to 'rescue' this and turn it into a proper article - I can't even fathom what it's about! Neiltonks (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research, appears to be a front to have the user link to their web page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - Previously deleted recretion of a badly translated mix of plagiarism )from the linked PDF), original research, and nonsense from the scam site that was originally linked (links now removed). JamesG5 (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Noting he edited his user page to remove the Speedy notice from the original posting of this, which was removed. JamesG5 (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2016 (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.