Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selman Kadria


 * 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 (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Selman Kadria

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  13:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  13:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  13:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. 23 editor (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - as per rationale given by IJA. The nominator is currently trying to delete or rename without consensus a series of articles just because he doesn't like them, clear WP:IDL. --Mondiad (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Still fails notability? 0 hits on Gbooks. Refs used in the article are unrealiable. Merge content into List of Kachaks if you insist.--Z oupan 19:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - How are the references unreliable? Are the published books which are used as references unreliable? If so please explain how. 0 google books searches means no books on google books, not 0 books on the topic. IJA (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Truth on Kosova comes from a publisher I can't find anything about so it might be self-published, which goes against WP:SPS. Albaniapress.com makes no claim of being a news outlet. Botasot and Express are both aping the interviews done by Liman Rushiti and I can't speak to NPOV because there's a lot of partisanship in that part of the world. Obviously the YouTube video isn't a source.. so I don't see any real sources to base an article on here. The onus is on the article to make a claim of notability. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., Anyway I'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... – Davey 2010 Talk 20:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Without reliable sources, the article makes no claim of notability and has none. Although the article doesn't qualify under WP:G5, it makes sense to nominate POV articles written by a now-blocked crank. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets gng, so the creation by sock is just rationale seems to be a revenge vendetta rather than a rational argument for deletion.Jacona (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you point out which sources support this claim of general notability? None of these look reliable to me. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Adequately sourced. He assassinated of a notable figure, whose subordinates then wreaked disproportionate revenge on innocent villagers.  His actions were thus the cause of the massacre.  I think that makes him notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2016 (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.