Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolia Whitinger

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rolia Whitinger[edit]

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

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Article_that_needs_attention. Fails GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Article heavily edited by the subject's son, pursuing a very clear agenda to expose the University of Texas for organ harvesting practises, or something like that (feel free to read the 4700 words and explain it to me!). FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 11:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the individual is not notable. The scandal might be, but that isn't a reason to include this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG to me, although per FoCuSandLeArN's cmt above I agree its possible parts of the article might be useful to cover the scandal that occurred re the Willed Body Program. Anotherclown (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article; reads like a passing local interest story and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is either using Wikipedia to advance an agenda, and/or a case of too much detail on a non-notable individual. Material may belong in another Wikipedia article relating to body donation or body trafficking but that's another issue. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2016 (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.