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 merge to Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid. T. Canens (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish Freedom Flotilla

[edit]

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

*Delete: Non notable article. Its about a "plan" that a few students have to "assist kurds". There is no notability here. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid. Not enough independent secondary sources to pass notability threshold for an independent Wikipedia article. Cs32en Talk to me 23:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 23:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Until this actually materialises AND some of the knife weilding batton bearing non-comformist Israeli peace aid students are gunned down by stunned Turkish soliders, this should not have its own page. Chesdovi (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the reflexive reaction of a few lone students and is inane and fatuous, since the Kurdish region in Turkey is not subject to any blockade and doesn't even have a coastline! --386-DX (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cs32en. If this event actually happens, it may become notable enough for its own article, but at its current stage, it probably isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a non-notable propaganda stunt. It hasn't happened, won't happen and cannot happen. It has received negligible mefdia coverage -- apart from references to this article itself, almost all of the three dozen Google hits are simply a copy of the original blog posting. This is not only non-notable; it is a non-event, and an attempt to hijack Wikipedia for propaganda purposes. Unless there is anything more substantial than the tissue of hype and speculation that this is based on, it should be deleted rather than merged. RolandR (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —RolandR (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —RolandR (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete media stunt that no-one much seems to care about. Unless of course if they could find a way to sail to Kurdistan... Misarxist (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid. This was already suggested on the page. The information is sourced from reliable sources. I am concerned about the neutrality, but that can be solved. Linda Olive (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article lists numerous sources. Hence, it's notable.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The notability of a subject depends on the coverage it receives in reliable 3rd party sources, which this topic has, not on its status as a 'plan'. There are numerous plans that have articles- including numerous ones about plans that have been scrapped (and thus will never materialize) - such as NASA Design Reference Mission 3.0. Similarly, even if we accept the unproven premise that this is a 'publicity stunt' - that would not preclude an article about it - as the Balloon boy hoax article shows. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard, we could split Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid into more than 200 articles. Cs32en Talk to me 16:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are 200 sub-topics with significant enough coverage, I don't see why not. There's certainly no Wiki policy against it, and at least one policy that encourages it. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - covered in multiple, high-quality and high-profile sources, and just looking at the Jerusalem Post article shows that there is enough material to add another one or two paragraphs. Yes, this article will probably be a stub for the rest of its life, but that in itself is of course not a problem. Pantherskin (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge. While their plans may be adequately covered by reliable media, nothing of turning this plan into action has happened yet. Merge as per Cs32en. Nageh (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2010 (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.