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. ST47 (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Rubin[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article talks too much about facilitated communication. Sources claiming that facilitated communication is a valid technique are not reliable. Fails WP:RS. If reliable sources cannot be found, this page must be deleted. Ylevental (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nom's statement is not a valid reason for deleting an article. The issue is whether the subject meets our notability guidelines. Additionally, there is an editor who is on a crusade to eradicate any "favorable" mention of facilitated communication. The issue of whether facilitated communication has any basis in science is a red herring when it comes to deleting biographies. That same editor is the one who put in the phrase "scientifically discredited" in the article. I find this user's behavior disruptive in the extreme. Unfortunately, there are some experienced editors, including at least one administrator, who seem to think all of this is acceptable. Otherwise, I would have challenged what is going on across multiple articles, but I am not quixotic.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus states that facilitated communication is psudoscience. Please do not push fringe positions. And I most certainly am on a campaign to eliminate this garbage from Wikipedia. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources that fail to acknowledge facilitated communication as psudoscience are not reliable. Fails WP:RS. Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Does not have any notability aside from one or two very low-exposure documentaries. Not much more than a cursory mention in other sources. Fails GNG. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Masum Reza^📞 10:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a related AfD with higher participation has been closed as delete. Sunrise (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 17 June 2019 (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.