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) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mishmar HaShlosha

[edit]
Mishmar HaShlosha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable locale. Searches only yield address information. There are no sources that indicate that this is a legally recognized place, and the topic does not satisfy WP:NGEO. This place is defunct place which was never legally recognized, indicating that it cannot satisfy WP:NGEO. Reviewing the place for general notability, no sources which mention the place in more than passing can be found. aprock (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Item 2 of WP:NGEO does not apply as neither of those sources establish past legal recognition. aprock (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without sources of any kind, WP:SNOW hardly seems appropriate. Despite all these keeps, the article still remains unsourced. aprock (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is sufficient that the sources exist (such as mentioned above); it is not required, though of course it would be a good thing, for them to be reflected in the article. BTW -- I notice that over 80% of the time, your !vote at AfD has been a non-consensus one. That's astounding; even more so for an editor who is nominating articles for deletion. Maybe that's a sign that you should be be reconsidering the basis on which you !vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The basis on which I make a vote is existence of reliable secondary sourcing that establish notability. So far (despite your curious claims to the contrary) there are none, neither in the article nor here. If anyone is "looking for a sign", the best place to start might be block logs.aprock (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So -- no comment on the fact that over 80% of the time your !vote is against consensus?
Also -- have you looked at (in addition to the above) the RSs in gbooks?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A large number of editors arguing against policy does not a consensus make. Sources which mention the topic only as an address/location do not establish notability. aprock (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your obviously ample skills at research, you for some reason chose not to read (or at least reflect) the RS coverage the confirmed the existence of the subject of your nomination. Maybe there's a chance that the other editors are reading the sources and the policy more closely than you are? In any event, that's an extraordinarily high non-consensus !vote rate; especially for one who is making nominations such as this one. Obviously the sources I reflected above provide the necessary RS support -- I've tossed a couple into the article (though that wasn't necessary -- and you should have seen them in your wp:before search).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Existence does not grant notability. Reviewing the sources you "tossed in," none of them establish notability, geographic or general. It's especially amusing that you are inserting table entries as reference worthy sources: [3]. What section of the book is that from? Have you even read the source, or is this just some random text string you googled up? aprock (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of respect for the nom, I'll withdraw the request that this be SNOWed. Perhaps others in the community will join in. I stand by all else I said, including that the sources --which evidence the existence of the place, and other facts regarding it -- is sufficient under the existing consensus on geographical article inclusion, which was intended to avoid wasting time on unnecessary AFDs. I think it is obviously a keep, but Aprock disagrees.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2012 (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.
More