Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Walker

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

There's little indication of notability from a search for sources - even with a disambiguator most sources I can find are about a different Roland Walker (link). There's also quite a bit of copy-pasted content but I'm not sure if it is severe enough to warrant a G12. The only possible claim to fame is the receipt of a reward which is only reported in one source. DrStrauss talk 12:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Delete So, I'm not fully sure about this. But looking in Lexis, Newsbank, and Ebsco all found no hits about the person that I think this article is about. But there are other Roland Walker's who appear and who maybe if they are all the same person (and I really couldn't figure that out), then maybe...maybe...that person passes notability. I'd suggest delete based on my best effort to save the article, which I couldn't do. But, I'd encourage folks to be hesitant if the article come back with any changes. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2017 (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.