Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leland William Modjeski

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. I withdraw my nomination and will later nominate the articles separately. Non-admin closure. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leland William Modjeski[edit]

Person only has notability for attempting to intrude the White House. This article does not pass WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOT#NEWS or WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E. There are no references. It and the others like it could easily be merged into White House intruders Reywas92 ^Talk 22:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all related and easily mergable to White House intruders and do not pass WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOT#NEWS or WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E:

Strong Keep, I'm going to assume this was a good faith attempt to clean up the project, but you're suggesting a man who flew a plane into the White House in an attempt to assassinate the President is "not notable"? That seems highly suspect -- same for attempted assassins who fired shotguns and assault rifles at American presidents -- I'm not even American, but they're all at least as notable as Andre Dallaire. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I shouldn't have bundled the nomination. Leland William Modjeski, Chester Plummer and Gerald Gainous should be deleted/merged at the very least, though. The others' articles are a bit longer and may be notable, but I am a strong mergist. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plummer was shot and killed by the Secret Service, I'd say he definitely fits notability. Arguments could be made for Gainous and Modjeski though; who at the very least, need to have their articles improved/reffed. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly urge that these articles be nominated individually and not collectively; in default of individual consideration, keep. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2008 (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.