Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis turczyn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 03:01, 5 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.Revision as of 03:01, 5 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Francis turczyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article written by the subject. Prod and other tags have been removed. Not sure of notability, other than he was represented by F Lee Bailey at trial. But only the first paragraph is about subject, and even that is just rambling talk about life and movie deals, and complaints about the legal system. The restof the article, about 50 pages or more, seems to be a list of all major criminals in 1960s USA. Dmol (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A search for the subject's name gives page after page of irrelevant links - those ones that contain the most unlikely keywords considering their real purpose (drawing the unwary in...). Little of any interest. As to the article, somewhat Proustian in length (as Wikipedia articles go) but rambling in a manner more reminiscent of Joyce. Definitely not encyclopaedic. I'm not at all sure what the point of it all is, either. Is it about Turczyn or Bailey? There already is an article on Bailey. Do we need one on Turczyn? I think not - even if it is shorn of the majority of the current version. Peridon (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2010 (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.