Deletion of John Traynor (Royal Marine)

Comment: What you are doing is adding sources written by believers into the article that support fringe claims. This is a problem for ringe. You are writing this article like this miracle is factual. This is a problem. I have been reading skeptical articles and books on the paranormal now for over six years (I have an extensive library of over 400 books), and I am telling you there isn't a single academic or skeptic source that evaluates Traynor's claims in a critical manner. All we are left with is sources written by believers endorsing his claims. The article is seriously in violation of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Non-free content (WP:F||WP:NPOV)

Comment: over to the main page about Lourdes apparitions and miracles as he, as an individual, is not that particularly notable other than within the context of the long-running claims about the site. Both  and  are very much on my mind. I don't think the justifications are proper for him to have his own page, let alone one with the details that it now has
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per the recent work of E.M.Gregory this topic does appear to have the legs to be notable per  due to the amount of coverage it has received (not just at the time but many decades later in some cases). Given that the article is now in decent shape (with the potential to continue to move forward) there seems little need point in binning it. That said just because there is enough to write an article doesn't mean our readers would need this level of coverage for this topic, and I agree with Fieari's suggestion that this could be covered just as well by merging and redirecting (baring in mind any undue weight issues in any possible merge target. Dealer's choice
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)