Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie York (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 keep. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Willie York

[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)

Fails WP:GNG. While he did receive SIGCOV, he doesn't seem to be much more than a local personality. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG notability is based in SIGCOV in multiple RS, unless a specific guideline applies we don't assess the merits of the actions that led to that SIGCOV. Mztourist (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GNG and WP:PERSISTENCE are met. The argument that you can meet WP:SIGCOV and yet fail GNG is inexpliciable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Does seem to pass WP:GNG. Regionality doesn't matter so much if the sources are independent, reliable, and span larger areas themselves but that last one is iffy. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hyper local coverage of a person of only local significance is never considered enough to lead to a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per nom - he received significant coverage. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E159:96EA:4544:1DB2 (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2021 (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.