Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rifqa Bary

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 prejudice to later recreation if shows necessary. Tone 17:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rifqa Bary

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

Does not meet some of the notability guidelines, is the subject of a single media event, and presumably a temporary one. So far, the American media have made a lot of this, but the subject is a nearly-adult runaway, and whatever ruling is made regarding whether she stays in Florida or returns to Ohio, she will be 18 soon and that will likely be the end of it. This was originally tagged for speedy deletion, which I declined. The author of the article has provided some arguments for the article's inclusion on the talk page. Maedin\^talk 11:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Occurrences in news sources once does not mean that it attains general notability, i.e., it may be the last one for the concerned person on the article to be mentioned on news.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 12:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails WP:ONEEVENT. ceranthor 13:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I added the article because I looked for Rifqa Bary here on WP after noticing her mentioned on another site, hoping to find any background information, and noticed there was no article. I'm not precious about whether it stays in. Kaid100 (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not meet wikipedia's established notability criterion yet. As of right now this is just a case of a runway with religious overtones. If this case becomes a societal phenomena the way Elian Gonzales, if we are still talking about this in December or January then this should be here. Until then this is not notable, a non-event really. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - Ms Bary's story is currently in the news and only likely to expand. It makes no sense to remove the article only to recreate it later after further developments. Or is someone trying to hide something> B00P (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ComentPlease assume the good faith of your fellow editors it's a ruel WP:AGF. Second wikipedia can't act on what is likely or what someone think's will happen. I think it is as likely that no matter the outcome of this court case after the judge rules latter this month this story will basically disappear. That's just as likely as it becoming bigger. That said WP:CRYSTAL says WP must follow not lead. Thus IMO your "point" is incompatible with our rules.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retain until this matter is settled and a more definitive decision can be made. I agree with B00P that it would be more work for someone to redo the article if she were to become "notable". Iceberg007 (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coment it would not be too hard to recreate an article of this quality. See the talk page for my critique. Basically, the article is not so great.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2009 (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.