Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael G. Waltz


 * 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. If List of Fox News contributors is created, he might be listed there, since notability requirements for stand-alone lists are less than for stand-alone articles, but until then, deletion is the consensus here.  So Why  08:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Michael G. Waltz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Couldn't find secondary independent sources covering the subject or his career. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- an advertorially toned BLP for an non notable individual. Promo content includes:
 * He regularly appears on prime time and daily shows (...) He is also a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies[13] and regularly speaks at industry, policy, and charity forums!
 * Wikipedia is not a speaker's bureau to help book speaking gigs, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable for stand alone article; really just a promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The reviews in thinkpragati.com and Publishers Weekly plus the coverage connected with the Bergdahl incident, are together enough for notability. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Any excessively promotional content can be removed by normal editing. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think if your suggestion is followed, there will be nothing left in the article. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * KeepNeutral Per TNT. I'm going to MOAB the article into its place. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  00:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)02:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The deed is ✅. Before and After. Probably can still use tweaking. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  01:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Did more thinking and unconvinced myself. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  02:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The article is in a significantly different state than it was when first nominated. Paging editors, , , and to have a second look.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 12:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is better, thanks to your work, L3X1, but I am still not convinced of his level of notability. Kierzek (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete An experienced editor created this and another editor gave it an upgrade so I'm relying on them ot have brought the most persuasive sources that exist and evaluating this one by the sources on the page and not running searches of my own. It's not enough. I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV of his career.  The book he wrote cannot be considered notable. Being a Lt. Colonel does not make him notable by dint of rank.  Nor is he notable as a journalist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I still stand with my delete vote per reasons brought forward by —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I made some of the initial edits to this page, because I thought the subject was notable - it just hadn't been cited properly. The book itself, the book reviews, the Bergdahl incident, and his apparent importance throughout the Afghan conflict seemed worthy to me. And the additional edits since then have made it pretty on point. Ge0rgi3Washington (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Unchanged -- still "Delete". Notability is not established by the existing sources. The article continues to be promotional, with copy such as:
 * Waltz is a Fox News contributor and comments on foreign policy and defense issues for Fox channels. He has appeared on prime time and daily shows such as Special Report with Bret Baier, Hannity, and Fox and Friends.[11][12]
 * The two citations are to the Fox channel, so a primary source. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This looks like a WP:BIO1E, so a redirect would seem to the obvious answer. However, it seems that consensus is that only notable people get mentioned in Fox News' article, and the List of fox news contributors is a redirect there, which leaves us pretty much with "delete" as the only option left. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and K.e.coffman's argument this is a promotional-only article. I cannot find any criteria where the subject meets notability guidelines. --Ifnord (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2017 (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.