Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Wenzel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. KaisaL (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Walter Wenzel[edit]

Walter Wenzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Delete: fails WP:GNG; insufficiently notable. Quis separabit? 15:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep actually passes WP:GNG on all 5 points that make up the description at GNG. Two specific articles from independent sources that address the subject in detail and is the primary subject of both independent news articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: Article needs expansion, but there are enough sources that could expand it into a decent article. Do not confuse stub status with non-notability. Montanabw(talk) 22:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment That is quotable--"Do not confuse stub status with non-notability" maybe even worthy of a short essay.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with the comments above, he clearly passes WP:GNG. This obviously needs some expansion to contain anything of value, but as Montanabw so eloquently said "Do not confuse stub satus for non-notability." ERK talk 09:04, 2 July 2016 (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.