Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yemane Gebre Loul (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Philippe 23:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yemane Gebre Loul

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Yemane Gebre Loul Articles for deletion/Yemane Gebre Loul (2nd nomination)
Yemane Gebre Loul (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

WP:BLP1E. Prisoner of the Month of the International Society for Human Rights, and that's it. Wikipedia is not Amnesty International. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support the deletion Delete. Very weak source for an unknown event, not enough footnotes.  A M M A R  21:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Notable for one thing only, and not a happy thing. Unless the issue of this man's imprisonment is covered much more widely, WP:BLP1E applies. This is not to say that the imprisonment could not be covered in a different article. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Very hard for natural humanitarian reasons - which we must as far as possible ignore, neither leaning towards keep or delete. First principles state that there should be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Well OK:
- there is this this [[1]], which says it is taken from [[2]], which says that its source is "compass" - no further detail given but it was quite easy to find and is here [[3]] So, that is one source.
- There is a passing reference here [[4]] - no source given, but could be independent, and Christian Monitor seem pretty authoriative.
- This [[5]] seems to be a news round-up, so not original to the website.
- This ref [[6]] - is interesting, not in english - but includes a photo and source: [[7]].
Is the coverage significant? Not very, but yes. So, apologies for essay: IMO, dicounting for my own admitted bias, it just meets WP:N criteria. Springnuts (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RS. Little has changed since the original AFD which I initiated. Punkmorten (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete one event does not confer notability. Pastordavid (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2008 (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.