Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. John Walsh (3rd nomination)

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. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

W. John Walsh[edit]

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

Delete, I still believe this article fails WP:GNG. The coverage available is trivial coverage, I believe he fails WP:AUTHOR specifically. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Walsh seems only to come up for evening passing reference as a witness is two trials, but he is not notable enough that people actually bother to check their facts on him. This used to be a much longer article, that gave us his educational background, but it lacked any sources. His writtings in the International Journal of Mormon Studies have lead to responses on the blog By Common Consent, but I really do not see him rising to the level of being notable. The fact that this article has only expanded by editing by the subject, without him even pointing us to sources that show his claimed notability is telling. This lin [1] does give some background on Walsh, but I really don't see him being cited in reliable sources. Yes, we can bring up multiple sources on his testimony about the conditions at the YFZ ranch, but I don't think even if we could get enough good sources on his testimony in Canada (which my initial take is that we cannot), we can get inflamatory blog calls and one horribly written Washpo article that mentions him in passing without even understanding who he is, but not more than that. He does not come anywhere close to meeting the general requirements for academics or authors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - everything I could find concurred with JPL's analysis. Stalwart111 23:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per inability to find notable information on the subject, but I do believe that the nomination is in bad form -- the nominator, who has three times nominated the article for deletion, removed most of the information from the article that could have been used to support notability. By deleting information and nominating three times, it carries the air of a vendetta against the subject rather than a dispassionate attempt to remove articles not meeting the notability guidelines. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and lack of reliable sources. I am amazed that this has survived two other AFDs. Gamaliel (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2013 (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.