Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael David Walsh II

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. ✗plicit 23:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael David Walsh II

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability backed up by WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and Motorsport. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all articles are related to independent media coverage in the industry and do not intend to promote the person itself or his business. They also display factual references to the person’s work and achievements. 188.83.21.87 (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all sources are independent and non biased and not promotional 188.83.21.87 (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking down each source:

[1] (Dirtwheelsmag) - Mostly good, however "The project is all about power and massive torque. In the powersports arena, nobody expects electric power to replace traditional gas engines. It’s just one more option that will lead to new sport quad development and racing opportunities. Keep up with Walsh Race Craft’s latest creations online at WalshRC.com" is phrased a little promotionally, in my opinion. Not a bad source, but not the greatest.
[2] (WalshRC.com) - Primary source.
[3] (ATV Scene) - I would consider this as a primary source since it only covers links to YouTube interviews.
[4] (Dirtwheelsmag) - This is a review and/or advertisement of a product. I wouldn't say that it qualifies as a secondary source for its creator.
[5] (Moultrie Observer) - Decent secondary source, but brief.

With that, we have one iffy secondary source (if it can be considered that), and one brief article/interview about the subject winning an award. That is not enough for WP:GNG.

(I also checked for any sources not included in the article, and was unable to find any). GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my argument at his company's AFD page. Non-primary sources seem biased and are likely promotional. However, if the company's article is not deleted (unlikely), then I would support a merge/redirect to it.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage. I started to edit but, but I'm giving up. There's nothing notable. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it lacks significant, extensive coverage of the person, making it difficult to assess their notability 190.219.103.171 (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Geschichte (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indicia of truly encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 01:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article created by single purpose editor. May have COI and may be close to the subject. Plus subject is not notable. Ramos1990 (talk)
Weak Delete There might be references out there, but it seems unlikely given what is seen now. Several of the current references are not acceptable and notability is not clear from what is written so far. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.