Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Shemonia

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Shemonia[edit]

Clear political soapboxing of questionably notable activist. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson -' 'Shazaam! - <*> 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The term "Soapbox" would apply had the writer been writing about himself, but in this situation the article was written by a third party about another person.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.68.225.15 (talk • contribs) .
Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: It's interesting that you cannot provide a valid reason.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.68.225.15 (talk • contribs) .
Would be somewhat notable if claims made on the article all panned out, but as it is now, it's just one guy's unverified grudges. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Each claim is backed up with links to verified media articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.68.225.15 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry, but I only count two links to actual media outlets, both going to the same local paper. Did I miss something? Thanks in advance for clarification. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Royboycrashfan 02:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: The term "Soapbox" would apply had the writer been writing about himself, but in this situation the article was written by a third party about another person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.68.225.15 (talk • contribs) .
Delete per above. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: It's interesting that you cannot provide a valid reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.68.225.15 (talk • contribs) .

What exactly does that mean? Anyway, we get the idea. You might want to look at m:How_to_win_an_argument for a light-hearted take on what works and what doesn't in evangelizing your POV/cause/whatever on Wikipedia. Thanks for taking the time to explain your opinion in re. this article! :) — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN. -- Vary | Talk 04:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soapbox. -- Ch'marr 06:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NPOV non-notable bio. Would need cleanup and demonstration of notability before I'd even consider a keep. - CorbinSimpson 08:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-03 13:37Z
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:NOT.--Isotope23 16:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also here. AndyJones 21:43, 4 March 2006 (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.