| Revision as of 08:35, 4 March 2020 editPrimalBlueWolf (talk | contribs)283 edits added For Deletion argument← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:57, 4 March 2020 edit undoJohnpacklambert (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers601,542 edits →William Howard HughesNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)</small> | :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)</small> | ||
| :'''Delete''' As above, I suggest a close review of ] may prove informing. I take the opposite position, that without sustained coverage past news reporting, that it is not notable. Regards the reference to ], that might be a good case to argue if the article had in fact improved, but until then, making that reference is itself an argument to delete. Its also just as easy for certain social media users to create a new, higher quality article, making the test moot. Until we see an improved article, its a nebulous hope that maybe in the future the article will be improved so therefore it should be kept. By that logic, we would never delete an article on WP! ] (]) 08:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC) | :'''Delete''' As above, I suggest a close review of ] may prove informing. I take the opposite position, that without sustained coverage past news reporting, that it is not notable. Regards the reference to ], that might be a good case to argue if the article had in fact improved, but until then, making that reference is itself an argument to delete. Its also just as easy for certain social media users to create a new, higher quality article, making the test moot. Until we see an improved article, its a nebulous hope that maybe in the future the article will be improved so therefore it should be kept. By that logic, we would never delete an article on WP! ] (]) 08:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' not every desereter is notable. No inclusion criteria less exhaustive than that would include Hughes. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, nor is it meant to be an agregate coverer of everyone ever mentioned in a newspaper. Nothing more exacting in inclusion criteria than that would justify having an article on Hughes.] (]) 21:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:57, 4 March 2020
William Howard Hughes
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- William Howard Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject of article does not appear to meet notability guidelines per WP:BIO Mdewman6 (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep With respect to @Mdewman6:, I suggest you review WP:CRIM specifically
The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role
. Further I suggest with attention being focused on the biography as the result of ending up on a certial social media cite this will pass the WP:HEY test by the time that this AFD closes. Hasteur (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 4. —Talk to my owner:Online 06:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Keep from me too. There are sources and information and his actions were historically significant. Nesnad (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete As above, I suggest a close review of WP:CRIM may prove informing. I take the opposite position, that without sustained coverage past news reporting, that it is not notable. Regards the reference to WP:HEY, that might be a good case to argue if the article had in fact improved, but until then, making that reference is itself an argument to delete. Its also just as easy for certain social media users to create a new, higher quality article, making the test moot. Until we see an improved article, its a nebulous hope that maybe in the future the article will be improved so therefore it should be kept. By that logic, we would never delete an article on WP! PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete not every desereter is notable. No inclusion criteria less exhaustive than that would include Hughes. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, nor is it meant to be an agregate coverer of everyone ever mentioned in a newspaper. Nothing more exacting in inclusion criteria than that would justify having an article on Hughes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)