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 No consensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Blalock

[edit]

Seemingly notable only for his involvement in United States v. Eichman, failing WP:BIO1E. Only reliable sources I've turned up mention him only in connection with that case. Jfire (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are some sources for his more recent activities [1] [2]. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete; in light of the tighter rules on biographic articles, I'm tending towards delete. Building a biography through newspaper appearances is not one of the better things Wikipedia does.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He hasn't received any coverage from reliable sources in his own right. Terraxos (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per the news sourcing not all of which focues direclty on United States v. Eichman or barring that merge to United States v. Eichman. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2008 (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.