Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holyland Case

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. The gist of the deletion rationale is summarized by WP:TNT; however, there is consensus here that the subject is notable, and enough editing has been done for the nominator to be satisfied. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holyland Case

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

Subject is likely notable, however the article is so poorly written that it does not meet encyclopedic standards and would need to be rewritten from scratch to bring it up to snuff. (Note: This is not intended as a slam on the author for whom I suspect English is not their native language.) Additionally the article cites no sources which is highly problematic considering it contains lots of highly negative claims about living persons. A possible redirect target might be the extensive coverage of the scandals and legal troubles in Ehud Olmert. In the end though this particular article is just not salvageable. Time to break out the TNT. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as so badly written there is no way to keep it by copyediting. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly notable and the verdict is now sourced. Whether this stuff created (I suspect) by machine translation is unsalvagable is another matter.TheLongTone (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...Make that Keep. The article has a sound structure, I've beaten out some of the lumps, it is by no means unsalvageable. There are plenty of sources.TheLongTone (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom Based on extreme makeover by TheLongTone. Well done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and important topic. Marokwitz (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs a lot of editing, but it's certainly a notable topic. --FeldBum (talk) 14:40, 7 May 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.