Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Lupo


 * 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. After second re-list, the main Keep argument was upheld, and remained unchallenged. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Francis Lupo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NSOLDIER. Being identified after "possibly" being missing in action for the "longest known period" is hardly sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete no actual significant claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - possibly is not good enough for an encyclopedia. There's possibly lots of remains in unknown places from the Spanish-American War of 1898. Bearian (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect/ Selective Merge to Missing in action. It would be an interesting tidbit to read in that section.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly meets WP:BASIC.  Not all the sources in the article are solid, but the WaPo and defense.gov ones certainly are.  In addition, I found:
 * I think people are putting too much emphasis on the possibly. That's just a poorly written sentence.  He's the longest known MIA.  The possibly is repetitive with longest known.  We have lots of articles about the longest/biggest/whateverist known something.  In all cases, it's always possible that at some point in the future, we'll discover one that exceeds this.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I've struck one of the NY Times sources. They're actually the same article, run under different headlines in different editions of the paper.  But the remaining sources are plenty to meet WP:BASIC and/or WP:GNG  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think people are putting too much emphasis on the possibly. That's just a poorly written sentence.  He's the longest known MIA.  The possibly is repetitive with longest known.  We have lots of articles about the longest/biggest/whateverist known something.  In all cases, it's always possible that at some point in the future, we'll discover one that exceeds this.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I've struck one of the NY Times sources. They're actually the same article, run under different headlines in different editions of the paper.  But the remaining sources are plenty to meet WP:BASIC and/or WP:GNG  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think people are putting too much emphasis on the possibly. That's just a poorly written sentence.  He's the longest known MIA.  The possibly is repetitive with longest known.  We have lots of articles about the longest/biggest/whateverist known something.  In all cases, it's always possible that at some point in the future, we'll discover one that exceeds this.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I've struck one of the NY Times sources. They're actually the same article, run under different headlines in different editions of the paper.  But the remaining sources are plenty to meet WP:BASIC and/or WP:GNG  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think people are putting too much emphasis on the possibly. That's just a poorly written sentence.  He's the longest known MIA.  The possibly is repetitive with longest known.  We have lots of articles about the longest/biggest/whateverist known something.  In all cases, it's always possible that at some point in the future, we'll discover one that exceeds this.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I've struck one of the NY Times sources. They're actually the same article, run under different headlines in different editions of the paper.  But the remaining sources are plenty to meet WP:BASIC and/or WP:GNG  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Strongly leading to Keep after, whose argument has not been refuted or challenged; however try one last re-list.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * RoySmith's intervention really should have been the end of this AfD, folks. Please stop re-listing and close it.—S Marshall T/C 21:57, 5 November 2019 (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.