Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Redfern


 * 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 speedy deleted. Non-admin closure. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Robert Redfern

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Dubious notability (author removed PROD): references do not appear to support subject's notability; seem to be about acupuncture in general rather than the subject in particular. Additionally, the subject may fail the criteria in WP:BIO. ZZArch talk to me 21:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G11 (I see we tagged it at the same time). Article only seeks to promote this person and his work. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think G11 really applies here, as the article as a whole is not fundamentally unencyclopedic. Nevertheless, I do believe that it should be deleted as violating WP:BIO. ZZArch  talk to me 22:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the subject is an academic who has brought a particular enzyme to popular attention, is there any change that could happen to make it more of an acceptable bio?? Ukhealthman (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not qualify for speedy deletion, as significance is asserted. But the enzyme itself, which is produced by bacteria and aids in the dissolution of sikworm coccoons in nature, has no proven efficacy in the medicine sphere. That being so, The person promoting it lacks notability.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:59, 23 January 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.