Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Hama


 * 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 keep. - Bobet 16:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Al-Hama
This is a tough one. For the first time I'm nominating a page that I'm not certain should be deleted. The majority of the content in the article deserves to be removed as unverified and possibly original research, and the article as a whole fails WP:NPOV for reasons discussed at length in the talk page for the article. Over a week ago I tagged the article with not verified and unreferenced, but nobody has edited the article since. I could simply remove the POV material, but that would leave an article too brief even for a stub ("Al-Hama is a town in Syria", pretty much) and even that has proved difficult to verify. I would welcome discussion from the community on the appropriate fate for this page. For now, my inclination is delete. VoiceOfReason 19:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with regrets. I would welcome seeing the content of the article verified, but without verification it doesn't belong here.  Badbilltucker 19:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. POV material should be removed and verifiable sources provided. If the article becomes a stub, so be it. After trying several Google searches on this, I'm convinced the subject is notable-enough to warrant an article. However, most of the Ghits were for blatantly POV sites/blogs. Extra caution should be taken in citing sources to avoid POV. If this is deleted, I would not be prejudiced against a superior re-creation later. Scorpiondollprincess 19:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I've rewritten and removed much of the POV material in the article. It still needs citations, and probably will need corrections based on whatever new information that the new sources would provide, but for now I think it's closer to NPOV. -- H·G (words/works) 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cite sources. This should be verifiable, especially since it's currently a hot topic.  Cdcon   20:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral I did a google search using keywords "Al-Hama" & "attack" and only got one decent descriptive hit from an opinionated website. See this link. Doesn't appear very well documented on the web elsewhere. JungleCat    talk / contrib  20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, completely unsourced article, if anyone really wants it on Wikipedia they can easily find a source or two. Palmiro | Talk 19:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:V. No prejudice against recreation with proper cites. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral - changing vote to neutral now. Citations have been added. Not the best ones, though, only one seems to be close to a reliable source - but the fact that it has some cites now is more than I can say for a lot of articles. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, basically per AbsolutDan. The first link that quotes David Hirst is solid documentation of at least one attack, and theoretically one could track down the book to find his primary sources. Melchoir 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.