Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariel Weinmann

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. --james^(talk) 02:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ariel Weinmann

Not significant enough to include; article written like soapbox CPAScott 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Bit premature to afd this stub, any US Serviceman charged with espionage is notable. The fact he has been held in secret for four months against established legal precedent makes it especially so. Not sure why you consider it soapbox, the article contains the available facts. --Paul E. Ester 17:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: My first reaction is to say, keep. It certainly looks like a notable case to me. Any concerns of soapboxing/POV could be addressed through editing. However my worry is that there's not much information on this yet. I couldn't google anything on the subject other than the one source already cited. I'd feel a lot more comfortable in asserting notability if multiple verifiable sources could be cited. Has anyone else started covering this story? Scorpiondollprincess 18:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If there is, it isn't to be found online. Google returns exactly two hits on the name, both referring to a seventh-grader, and other search engines produce similar. Very strange, I'd think a blog or two would have picked up the story at least. Not necessarily indicative of anything, though. Agree that the case would likely be notable, if true. Shimeru 21:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:It's a breaking story and has yet to be picked up by the blogs I saw it on drudge this morning. Google News returns hits for Ariel J. Weinmann. FWIW military.com has reprinted the article. --Paul E. Ester 21:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, interesting story and more sources will become available. If anyone wants to discuss it, please feel free to say so on my talk page. --TheM62Manchester 21:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. this is the only major source for this breaking story that I found. Why is it up for deletion?
• Strong Keep Notability has gotten much larger with more and more media coverage. [1]FancyPants 19:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable subject, and enough material has emerged at this point to support an article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This will definetly become a news story. I recommend we hang on to it. --Daysleeper47 19:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Is this suggested deletion censorship? Spruce up article if necessary. Today's Haaretz (Israel) quotes a Saudi news report that Weinmann spied for Israel: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/748434.html 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep' and rewrite. This is a badly written article about a highly notable espionage case that we should describe. Google is currently showing 20 hits for http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&hl=en&client=google&ncl=http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1188753.php/US_sailor_faces_espionage_charges ➥the Epopt 22:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - there is nothing to stop you from improving this article while it is listed as afd, if you have improvements I would encourage you to make them. --Paul E. Ester 23:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• As the original tag placer, it seems clear that as of today, enough notability has been established -- facts that did not exist when the tag was originally applied (no results appears in google, no sources were listed in the article, etc. -- all very good reasons to list as afd). Now that creditibility has been established, the afd tag can probably be removed -- now that verifiable sources have been added to the article (a critical gap in the original writing IMHO). --CPAScott 14:19, 10 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.