Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Clousing (3rd 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Clousing

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

This was discussed at a previous AfD, which closed as Merge. The merge ended up being contentious and was ultimately brought to deletion review. The result of that review was to relist it here. There's a lot of good background at the DRV which I'm not going to try to summarize here, but I encourage all participants in this new AfD to go read the review before commenting here. My listing this at AfD is a purely administrative action; I offer no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After cleaning up the references, deadlinks, external links and grammar, I feel I have a basic understanding of the article subject. I'm still not seeing anything which makes this individual notably stand out from the literally thousands (according to one of the cited sources) of similar war resisters and conscientious objectors from that same period in history. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the editor who attempted the merge that eventually lead to this relisting. It is one of many that I have completed recently where the decision to merge an article has in my opinion reduced the quality of the target article. This has inspired me to expanded an essay on it. Anyway mini rant over. Despite there being some good secondary sources I would say this falls into single event territory. AIRcorn (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: inclined to agree that this is a BLP1E situation. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not notable per WP:GNG (hence the previous AFDs), if no one can agree on a merge target then bin the lot. Anotherclown (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability at best. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2016 (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.