Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Walczak


 * 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. (non-admin closure) czar   &middot;   &middot;  14:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Bill Walczak

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and has not received enough significant coverage in any other aspect. Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. SurvivorFanHH (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC) — SurvivorFanHH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, considering the 2010 news article which is quite comprehensive. There's also this 2012 article in the Boston Globe. There may be other coverage, considering this is not a local council election, rather it is an election for mayor of a major city and Walczak obviously has some importance in the area. Okay, we all know this article needs to avoid becoming a platform for his current election campaign, but I think the non-political coverage creeps him over the WP:GNG threshold. Sionk (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that he's not notable as a politician, but he does meet notability in other areas. HillbillyGoat (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve fails WP:POLITICIAN but meets WP:BIO with extensive coverage in multiple secondary WP:RS online. Captain Conundrum (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.