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 no consensus. Additional discussion regarding the article and its content can continue on its talk page if desired. North America1000 09:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

non notable TeeVeeed (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:TeeVeeed You can't vote twice you already voted when you proposed it for deletion.--Shrike (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Struck duplicate !vote from the nominator; the nomination itself is considered as the delete !vote. North America1000 09:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is upsetting and I am just going to go ahead and say that I have a COI here and every other LOCAL editor here does too if they really think about it for a minute. I am not editing this topic from this point on. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:TeeVeeed, It is exceedingly bad form not only to WP:BLUDGEON the process as you are doing, but to delete well-sourced, relevant information from the page as you did here: [1]. The source was an article in La Stampa, translated and republished by the BBC, it was linked to Proquest - which is paywalled. I hate paywalls too. But a paywall is no excuse for deleting a source and accuse an fellow editor of OR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "connection" is that the plotters were in contact with Hohxa to the extent that, according to the article in The Atlantic, they raised money to fund his travel to Syria via Turkey, helped make the arrangements, and he accepted the money they raised and the arrangements for travel and contacting ISIS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That accurately summarizes what I just said with more words, yes. You can't make the claim This in addition to his connection with the 2015 Boston beheading plot when he never planned, funded, participated, or (to the best of our knowledge) even knew about the plot. The most you can accurately say is he knew the plotters for an unrelated reason which equates to absolutely nothing notability-wise. But, please, push another narrative that doesn't represent the sources faithfully.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:- All of this article's sources are based on a single article of The Atlantic. Some of the top newspaper are yet to publish his story, editor could hold NYT as example. I know and agree that he got deepth coverage from media. But think once, if his story turned false tommorrow then it will hardly have any notability. So, I think the topic needs further confirmation and verification. Until then, it doesn't deserve a separete article. Bests Ominictionary (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON / WP:NOTNEWS. This is based on the story in the Atlantic and local coverage, also driven by Atlantic. Such as: [2], with routine soundbites from his coworker (yes, he was weird) and his mum (we are very upset). I would argue that domestic “terrorist” James Alex Fields is more notable than this guy, but Fields does not have a stand-alone article. When it comes to Hoxha, no apparent lasting significance just yet. There’s no suitable redirect target so it’s a “delete” for me. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISIS releases a lot of videos and they get covered. I don’t see a need for a bio in this case. Yes, the subject exists, but he’s not encyclopedically relevant just yet. I don’t see in-depth, significant coverage here, hence my “delete” vote. Hope this clarifies my position. K.e.coffman (talk)
  • Keep: When your sources are worldwide and multilingual and include among others
    • The Atlantic
    •The Star Ledger
    • NBC 10 Philly
    • NBC News proper
    • Newsweek
    • BBC
    • La Stampa, and the
    • Philadelphia Inquirer,
    to say that something is "not notable" is untenable. Meets WP:GNG. XavierItzm (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2018 (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.
No tags for this post.