Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krugersdorp Standard Bank robbery


 * 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. Claims that references probably exist without providing evidence are not sufficient to prevent the deletion of the article. -Scottywong | prattle _ 18:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Krugersdorp Standard Bank robbery

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unreferenced article. Could be a hoax. Prove me wrong. Chutznik (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is not a hoax - I was in South Africa when it happened - it was all over the local newspapers. Unfortunately I do not have any references, but then I do not have access to the South African copyright libraries. If appropriate references can be found, then this article might be noteworthy on account of the novelty approach to the crime. I also saw a note on Facebook (dated 2010) regarding this bank robbery.
 * Keep - as far as I am concerned, this article is verifiable - one needs to consult the South Arican newspapers to find information. Also, this article is sufficiently noteworthy that thirty years later, questions which received answers were posted on Facebook.
 * COI note: I posted a mention about this on a forum that is unrelated to Wikipedia. The editor of this article (who is also a member of that forum, but with whom I have never otherwise had contact) contacted me about references. Martinvl (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 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) 00:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Σ  τ  c . 00:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep * sufficient for GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:V, no citations to reliable sources to verify this. The sole link in the article goes to an unsigned, undated text of unclear provenance.  Sandstein   11:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sandstein 108.86.168.218 (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2012 (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.