Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel E. Walker

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 redirect to Texas v. Johnson. Sandstein 07:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel E. Walker[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Biography of a person only known for one event. - Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC) Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is a product of the massive Billy Hathon sock farm. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I did some research, but ultimately found no sources expanding on his notability in any way. I changed my vote back to delete upon finding out that Billy is the one who put it in the article. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 21:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Changing per Icewhiz, for the fourth time.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 14:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. As indicated, the subject made the news for one event, but there is no sourced indication of actual notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my recommendation to a redirect, per the discussion below. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect to Texas v. Johnson (where he is already mentioned). Plausible search term, and the event he is notable for is part of that case.Icewhiz (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Modified to redirect, as I think what is currently in Texas v. Johnson (which I readded, new sources and wording - diff) - is sufficient there and I don't think bio details need to be merged. Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Texas v. Johnson My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For the record, the only reason the subject's name is mentioned at Texas v. Johnson is because it was inserted by Billy Hathorn, ostensibly for the purposes of justifying the creation of this article (both occurred on the same date). --Kinu ^t/_c 21:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kinu, Thanks for pointing that out. I've reverted his addition as a possible copyvio and am changing my vote to delete. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 21:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the status of the creator here, this is easily sourced - e.g. four books: [1], [2], [3], [4] (which notes on page 41 that Walker was also part of the trial) - and merits a mention in Texas v. Johnson - I've added it - diff. Icewhiz (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Texas v. Johnson, as a gesture of grace; otherwise exterminate. -The Gnome (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2019 (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.