Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of participants of Freedom Flotilla II


 * 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. One point: the CRYSTAL concerns no longer seem to apply as the event has now started. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

List of participants of Freedom Flotilla II

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per WP:CRYSTAL. The Freedom Flotilla II is a scheduled or expected future event, the list of participants is currently unknown. It is not possible to create a verifiable list of participants. Marokwitz (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Delete argument is faulty. It is not an "expected future event", it is an ongoing event. The Flottilla II is already gathered in Athens, participants are already participating in the event. --Soman (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note. Delete argument is not faulty. The article is a list of participants which is currently unknown, and contains statements such as "the following Canadian participants were expected to be on the Tahrir". Wikipedia does not deal with "Expected" details and unverifiable speculations. There is no reason (other than recentism) to be so hasty as to create this article before the voyage took sail and a true, verifiable list is published. Marokwitz (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. the who's who might be important after the fact and is indeed not quite known right now. some said they would sail, then they wouldn't, etc. - very few are noteworthy. Soosim (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Most participants are verifiably referenced.  Many are notable enough to already have their own WP entries.  Vessels have already left home ports - event is in progress.  If particular participants can't be verified as participating, then there are grounds for removing those entries - not for deleting the entire article! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I put this page together in preparation for flotilla, realizing there may be some minor changes. Changes are what makes Wikipedia perfect for this list. The 2010 Freedom Flotilla has a similar page. Many individuals on page, are notable, as can be seen by large number of links to their pages. Page already has 3 main authors for the Canadian, Irish & U.S. ships. Finally, as this is ongoing story, at the very least we should wait until story has run its course. --Everett (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable and important event. It is not "scheduled or expected", it is already in progress, even if some of the boats are currently prevented from joining those which have already set out. Many of the individual participants are themselves notable, while the wide range of participants is also notable. The article is reliably sourced, and is certain to be expanded. RolandR (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a very important event, and I am translating the articles into French. I know that there will also be a "deletion" request on the French wikipedia, we went through it for the first Gaza Flotilla. I feel that it is important to keep such a list, and to keep it up to date. GastelEtzwane (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an important ongoing event. The combined forces of the US and Israel should never be allowed to censor this type of entry  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.115.139 (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep As long as reliable sources are used. Obviously changes can be made as people are found to have or have not participated. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the non-RS sourcing can be deleted, and RS sourcing provided (where we either have no refs, or non-RS refs ... which is much of the article), this could well survive.  In its present form, it is problematic (especially as it has statements as to BLPs, that are not sourced to RSs).  I'll wait and see how it progresses, with the thinking that editors can improve it.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Due to the number of expected participants it would be unwieldy to list all participants on the main page. However, the page should be refined to reflect current or former participants. If described clearly on the page that the names of participants may not physically be on board these ships, but have (even by endorsement from cited source) supported the event may be considered participants, the article may be able to retain the majority of its names gathered from various websites. This is a poorly constructed page, but can be saved from deletion. Those editors that are passionate about the subject should take the time this weekend to clean up the article.MichaelJPierce (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- with a BIG disclaimer As the page stands it doesn't meet WP:NOTE at all. Most of the content is simply copied and pasted from the organizers websites.  It needs to be cleaned up.  Rename to "Notable passengers of Freedom Flotilla 2" and only list passengers have received coverage by secondary  sources. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that what is not sourced to RSs should (per BLP policy) be deleted. That would bolster the appropriateness of the list.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was almost removing some of the apparent uncited, all names that are not wikipedia notable should require a clear citation right beside their name, in fact all the names do, a clear support for them being on this ship or they should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nom's argument, CRYSTAL, doesn't stay (if ever it was to). Participation of multiple notable persons is a pro. These persons's statements (expressed, and the fact their being aboard) are notable. -DePiep (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nom's stated reason doesn't apply, highly notable, certain to be expanded and additional RSs added. --NSH001 (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2011 (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.