Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disability

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Disability. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Disability|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Disability. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to People.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disability/archive

watch

See also: Medicine-related deletions and Health and fitness-related deletions

Disability related deletion discussions

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

David Peter Halliwell

David Peter Halliwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

David Halliwell the playwright is notable, but David Halliwell the radio presenter and priest is not. I see several non-independent sources and trivial mentions but no WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. No additional qualifying sources turn up in a WP:BEFORE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Disability, Christianity, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons similar to those I enunciated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Paul Burton, created by the same SPA. Anglican priests are typically leaders in their towns, so they get in the local news frequently. Thus us totally run of the mill. As a member of the Anglican community, I'm sympathetic to this priest's works, but that's not a reason to keep. Bearian (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2025 (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.

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. ✗plicit 12:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Sex, Gender and Disability in Nepal

Sex, Gender and Disability in Nepal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a notable book. Insufficient sources. Not a single neutral source. First reference is about some other Novel written by author. References 2,3 are not reputed media outlets in Nepal. Ref 4 cant be used as a supportive source. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Disability, Sexuality and gender, and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  Added a few more independent sources the editor suggested. Thank you for such a helpful community to guide the content/article creator like me. Traillek (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  Now the references look strong. 168.20.179.92 (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. The article's only hope of meeting WP:NBOOK is criterion #1: the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. However, it fails. Reviewing the current sources:
  • Source 1: the author's bio on the publisher's website. Not independent and SGDN is not the subject.
  • Source 2: the author's website. Not independent and SGDN is not the subject.
  • Source 3: an op-ed by the author that only mentions SGDN in the bio at the end. Not independent and SGDN is not the subject.
  • Source 4: an article about a different book written by the author that mentions SGDN once. SGDN is not the subject.
  • Sources 5 and 7: The same book review of SGDN posted on two different websites, which are of questionable reliability. Regardless, this would only count as one "published work" for the purposes of NBOOK.
  • Source 6: an scholarly article written by the author before SGDN came out. Not independent and SGDN is not the subject.
  • Source 8: a scholarly article written by the author of SGDN that contains a single citation of SGDN. Not independent and SGDN is not the subject.
  • Source 9: The book itself. Not independent.

Astaire (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete – Per Astaire analysis. Svartner (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2025 (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.

Disability related proposed deletions

• Height dysphoria (via WP:PROD on 11 September 2023)