Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. John Walsh (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   procedural keep. (NAC)   S warm  ( Talk ) 06:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

W. John Walsh
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. Violates WP:ONEEVENT there were claims that he was notable as per WP:AUTHOR but nothing has been found to support this claims. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as too soon after the last AfD. Articles for deletion/W. John Walsh was closed at 00:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC). If you feel that the closer was wrong, use deletion review rather than starting a new AfD. - Eastmain (talk • contribs)  16:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Wp:NOTAGAIN (the previous discussion closed at 12.42am this morning). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If it was a new nominator this might make sense, but since the last discussion was also originated by this guy he seems just be his persistent desire to destroy this article to be violating the rules of having a neutral point of view.John Pack Lambert 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok there was a discussion that resulted in no consensus. Notability was claimed but other then 2 sources and never proved notability on anything other then his comment on one event.. How would bringing it to Deletion review have any difference. The article will be debated there or here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Process keep. I supported the deletion just last week, but if people keep nominating articles for deletion so soon after consensus failed, then we will be inundated with XfDs at the time when we have to deal with 59,999 other proposed deletions of BLPs. Consensus doesn't change in one week. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Especially not when there wasn't one to begin with....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ideally this should have been re-listed rather than closed as "no consensus".  Discuss the merits of the article, please.  This one violates WP:ONEEVENT and thus should be removed.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 08:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep   this is an abuse of process.    DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How so? How many days must one wait, really, if a consensus wasn't reached during a discussion which should have clearly been extended?   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 20:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * well, it would help to wait long enough that there is some chance of forming a clear consensus. I usually advise 2 or 3 weeks regardless of what I think of the article--and please don't assume I want to keep this one--the resulting discussion is better than if we proceeded immediately. That's the difference between a no-consensus and a relist. If an immediate followup would solve things by getting more participation, relist is the way to go. If it would be better to let opinion mature, give people a chance to reconsider, and then  start the discussion from scratch, it needs some time to happen.     DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Far to soon to relist. Edward321 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 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.