Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Trosch (2nd 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   keep. With the additional added sources, it appears that he just squeeks by. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

David Trosch
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a former attack article which has been pruned down and now has two sources - trosch.org and trosch.org. Oh, and a supporting link to trosch.org. If you were to infer that this is the subject's own website you would be exactly right. The subject appears to have been a tabloid cause du jour for a short while some years back but there is no evidence of substantial biographical coverage, only commentary about his controversial statements. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. But needs work. Doing a Lexis-Nexis Academic search in the category of "Major World Publications" with the search "david w/1 trosch" (the word "david" within one word of the word "trosch") turned up 87 articles from newspapers including the Washington Post, USA Today, and New York Times all indicating he is a well-known anti-abortion "militant." I'm going to go ahead and put in a couple of these to bolster the article. Can easily see that this is one of those controversial entries (keyword "abortion") that could be a battleground, but am convinced he's notable enough to include. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a few more cites from major newspapers. Ok, of those 87 articles in Lexis-Nexis Academic, a number are "false drops" (satisfy the search criteria, but not about the subject in question). However, there are still a number of relevant cites on the subject of this article that convince me that he is notable enough for a wikipedia entry. The original delete proposal was perfectly relevant based on the original article. This article still needs some work. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep He's notable. We should get the article right, which may take a lot of work, but that's not a reason to discard it Vrivers (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge - Appears to fail BLP1E. Yes there are articles about him from years after the event, but they appear to still be focusing on what he said surrounding the murder, and the consequences of this, rather than on his work elsewhere. Could be merged into the main article on the event. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep coverage runs from 1993 to 2003. It would save everyone time if the nominator did a stroll through Google News archive first. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient sources exist (as demonstrated above) and have been added to the article. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notable & sufficient sources exist. - 22:48, 3 October 2010 (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.