Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyde cancer cluster

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 keep. Passes WP:GNG. Neutrality and speculations are supposed to be tagged, not deleted for. (non-admin closure) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde cancer cluster

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

Includes speculation and is arguably not neutral, includes phrasing such as "In late 2011 and early 2012, over a period of several months, the Environmental Protection Agency finally tested soil in several different parts of Clyde and surrounding areas." No sources citing that incidence is beyond pure random chance. Includes both WP:OR & WP:SYNTH. CFCF 💌 📧 13:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pretty clear from the sources that this passes WP:GNG. Neutrality and OR are article editing issues, not reasons to delete. shoy (reactions) 14:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Shoy. Jus da fax 16:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very well-sourced and no reason to delete that i can see. I'm really curious why this was even nominated for deletion to begin with. SageRad (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shoy --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is an abundance of sources cited in the article that substantiate notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2015 (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.