Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Geoghegan

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. Without strolling into the non-related policy topics, there is a consensus for deletion.

Nominator was not blocked for socking etc, so was a valid !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Geoghegan[edit]

[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)

PROD objected for an unexplained reason, fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. All sources only give a brief mention of John Geoghegan. Eyebeller 09:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eyebeller 09:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I PRODDed it, not sure how an IP is allowed to dePROD. He fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, only really known for his death in We were Soldiers once and young (book and movie). He is literally the guy in every war movie who shows the picture of his sweetheart and then gets killed. Mztourist (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can de-PROD. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 14:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous, only confirmed Users should be allowed to do so. Mztourist (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not at all notable. Do not get me started on why we have a system that makes it so easy to create articles and so hard to delete them. We have had articles exist with 0 sources for over 15 years, so clearly there is something wrong with our current system.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 7 January 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.