Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar benguit

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 Speedy Delete per G12. MrKIA11 (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omar benguit[edit]

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

Cut and copy violation with living peoples address and other similar issues - not notable under this name or any other for that matter - one event BLP - not notable murder. If is is by any slim chace notable I have given the user links to article creation (not in article space in incubation or userspace) - this version and its history needs deletion first. Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This comment from the creator of the BLP article User:Londonlinks - which is part of this diff is one one the major problems - "Wikipedia editors are not barred from making contributions to articles which they have already published elsewhere - please read up on the policies and rules." - User:Londonlinks is/has some kind of COI connection with the not wikipedia reliable website they are cut and copying from and attempting to add as a citation/external link - http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/index.htm - Here is the diff of my attempting to help the user but my offer was rejected and the account asserted my blanking of the article was vandalism. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY There is too much blanking of articles occurring under the guise of "editing". It is not editing to simply delete a whole article and then to canvass opinion on this forum after the act has been committed. In order to edit and improve articles, the article has to be visible and present on the index for other editors to make improvements and amendments. This is commonsense. The act of deleting whole articles is an abuse which is no different from other acts of vandalism. Londonlinks (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given. Eeekster (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now marked the article for speedy deletion - there will not be opportunity to edit the article or improve it, but deleting or blanking articles now seems to be the new and fashionable way to edit. It's not for me however, so I will move on and leave the "editing" to the new breed of editors currently populating Wikipedia. Londonlinks (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy deletion nomination mentioned here is on the article's talk page, not the article itself, and its explanation is "Another editor wants to delete this page so I have done so." That template was inserted on the article and promptly removed, and the only reason I didn't remove the one on the talk page is so people know what this person is talking about. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2011 (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.