Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Mckinney (US Marine)

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Mckinney (US Marine)[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)

Although interesting, I am not sure there is enough depth to pass WP:GNG. I ran a google search and I still don't see enough coverage in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing enough to pass GNG. It appears to have been speedily deleted on 21 March for copyright violations, only to reappear in a slightly modified form. Intothat darkness 13:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. No lasting coverage of his near-crime and conversion to Islam. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly written, repeats the same 2-3 sources multiple times... yeah. This is a goner. AdoTang (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think WP:NOTNEWS applies here. "Poorly written" and multiple citations of a source are not deletion grounds. Having previously had copyvio issues is neither, as long as they've been rectified. (One might make a case for WP:BLP1E, but I don't think that quite applies either.)

As for notability, it seems this chap has written an op-ed piece (possibly in the Indianapolis Star?) which was then picked up by others, so you see a lot those around, and they're obviously not enough as they're close source. However, the BBC and News.com.au sources cited seem pretty solid to me, and there is also this coverage in the NZ Herald, Colorado Sun, Yeni Safak, and the documentary shown here on CBS. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS.--Catlemur (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Interesting story, zero notability. This is a one-event news story at best. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2021 (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.