Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy Walker

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. Cleanup here is required, definitely, and thus I will tag it as such. Closing without prejudice for another AFD in future if things don't improve. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Walker

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

No indication that Mr. Walker has attained any significant level of notability. his lawsuit appears to have gone nowhere. I have done google searches, and all i could find was a new version of one of his refs, and a location on yahoo maps for his business. of course, has linkedin, etc, but those are not RS(other refs here were dead links). article created by an WP:SPA, with 2 associated SPA's and a number of IP addresses that have edited only this article. Basically, pure, unreferenced promotion with no chance to be shown notable in the years since creation. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This is borderline, coming close to one event status with the SpongeBob lawsuit. I did also find RS discussing the Supercuts puppets, so I guess I'd lean keep, though it's marginal. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that if the article is kept it should be edited to remove unsourced material - the article seems a bit promotional. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, i fully intend to edit down to only sourced material, per BLP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but enhance. Whether it was created by a WP:SPA and other SPA's IP addresses for this article only is not a good reason to have the article deleted. If the article gets enhanced - added references - and the text without referenced gets deleted it can be kept. Maybe this source can help to understand more about the lawsuit. For sure it meets WP:GNG, specifically has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 09:27, 23 November 2011 (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.