Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Informed Consent (website) (2nd nomination)

Informed Consent (website)

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

Page does not obviously meet notability requirements; I think it fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Only two references are not self references. One is a mention in an article not about the article's subject and the other is used to reference information which does not indicate notability of the article's subject. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral it certainly appears notable, given the large member count and how decisive the previous AFD was. That said, the sourcing IS very poor, and I can't find much better either (there's this, but it isn't much) and may not pass WP:WEB. I'd probably be leaning toward delete if better sources can't be found by the end of AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Haven't found any sources that help article pass WP:GNG or WP:WEB. How did all of those WP:ILIKEIT arguments in the previous AfD slip by and result in a keep? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]