Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adem Grabovci

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adem Grabovci

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Negative BLP, with the essential attacking part unsourced. The Banner talk 11:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not a negative BLP, it is a biograpgy of an important politician - with several noteworthy details such as being a founding member of the Kosovo Liberation Army, serving as a political prisoner for 6 years, and currently being a member of parliament for Kosovo. If there are unsourced details in the article, they can just be removed - the reason for nomination is not valid. John Cengiz talk 20:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for the first sentence, everything is unsourced... The Banner talk 21:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's an MP in his country's parliament for Pete's sake! and deserves just as much coverage as any two-bit politician from Germany or USA, or Ireland. I'll add a banner cite tag when I do a little mechanical fixing. Give the article a chance at least. Paavo273 (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All what is written in the article (current state) appears in the webpage of
Assembly of Kosovo (listed as reference). For sure the article needs improvement, but I don't see any reason to be completely deleted. Mondiad (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep.
WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
It should have been nice when you looked a bit further before you waived your classic WP:BEFORE. This] was there WP:BEFORE. The Banner talk 11:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did. You could have removed it yourself instead of nominating for deletion. That's not improving Wikipedia. It's a misunderstanding of what AfD is for. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Elected MP passes notability. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable per
WP:POLITICIAN (as referenced by Necrothesp) and almost all statements seem to actually be referenced in the official bio. Can you please tell me exactly what about the article is a negative (I don't see anything that looks like an attack, but I could very easily be missing something) or unsourced statement?Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
- I believe there was some negative material when the article was nominated, but this has since been removed. Unsourced negative material is a reason for editing, not deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then edit, my friend, don't start shouting from the sideline. The Banner talk 11:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It had already been removed when I added my comment above! And this is a bit rich coming from someone who nominated an article for deletion without bothering to check for notability first and who could instead merely have removed the offending section. Oh no, instead you just blanked the page and requested speedy deletion, despite the subject clearly being notable. AfD is for deletion on the grounds of insufficient notability. Since he clearly is notable under our guidelines, I fail to see why you nominated for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.