Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Mohammad Habali (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:26, 8 August 2019

Death of Mohammad Habali

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

queried delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein and SystemDisrupt: queried delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much has changed from the previous AfD, closed in March 2019. We had a few additional more months of silence - lack of continued coverage. On July 22nd AP did run a wire piece - [1] - on Israeli investigations at large, which used the Habali incident as an example - devoting a few lines to it (and then mentioning it along with all other pending cases - e.g. - "All of the remaining Gaza investigations, and several in the West Bank, including the deaths of Habali and Nakhleh, remain .... The AP piece is not WP:INDEPTH (being but a few lines), and doesn't change the lack of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of this sadly routine event. Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt the title as it fails WP:NOTNEWS. (Note: I have contributed to the article) Salting needed as it is evident that the author has strong feelings associated with the topic/subject and is repeatedly creating a non notable death event article. This death was a sad event but it is a conflict zone where hundreds are dying (from both sides). The AfD-1 was closed as delete and the main concern was failing WP:NOTNEWS. As we can see the coverage of the event has petered out after the initial spurt as is expected from such cases. Now the right thing to do was to wait and watch if the death gets WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE over an extended period of time in multiple RSes or not, but the author has jumped the gun on a minor coverage in one source where the subject is Israel Army and Habali is used as an example among others. I agree with Icewhiz in his assessment that this new article is not WP:INDEPTH coverage. And accordingly the article should be deleted. It seems to me that this article will be created everytime Habali name comes up in newspaper, so I am suggesting a salting as well.--DBig Xrayᗙ 08:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SALT? Do you know what it is? So, you don't like the subject to appear again and is it because of your strong feeling with regard to the incident? Also, "repeatedly creating a non notable death event article" is a baseless and bizarre argument, the admin restored it after it was speedy deleted. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be accurate - restored on your challenge and put up by him at AfD. Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to ignore the rhetorical questions. Here is the article log in case anyone has doubts about the factual basis of "repeatedly created"
31 December 2018: The article was first created by Mhhossein
18 March 2019 : Deleted by AfD 1
30 July 2019 : The article was created again by Mhhossein
30 July 2019 : CSD tagged and deleted by Anthony Appleyard.
30 July 2019 : CSD challenged by Mhhossein. Article restored by Anthony Appleyard and nominated for AfD2. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are these your evidences for accusing me with "repeatedly creating"? OMG! By the way, you failed to show why the subject needs to be SALTed. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article had been the subject of multiple reliable sources since the date of the incident. It was deleted allegedly because it lacked continued coverage and now there are sources proving it was a false argument. Habalis's death was mentioned in a work by Medico International [2]. Despite the allegation, The article by the Associated Press dedicates enough space to Habali and the piece essentially commences with detailing the death in 4 paragraphs. As the reliable sources say, there are dozens of incidents involving IDF's shooting of Palestinians and it's interesting that in the two works ([3], [4]) dedicated to the investigation into death of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers, Mohammad Habali's death is covered.

His death was notable since the mentally ill man posed not threat to the soldiers and he was still shot from back! That's why his case is occasionally mentioned by sources as a file needing investigation. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mhhossein (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very short paragraphs - extremely short paragraphs - 160 words in total. As for the medico.de blog post - it seems to be a WP:BLOGS - not a RS - and furthermore has a single sentence mentioning Habali in passing.Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This amount of coverage is already enough for demonstrating reliability when it's put besides other sources. Also, medico.de is not a personal blog, rather it's a "self-published expert source". --Mhhossein ^talk 13:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was deleted back in March, things haven't changed much since, lacking continued coverage. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article engages in way too much POV-pushing to be acceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and it's not even an AFD argument! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incident in which a mentally ill/mentally incompetant individual was in the street during a tense security operation and was shot. This sad death has not had WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in the media or WP:LASTING impact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks POV at first glance and on the borderline of notability. Avaya1 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Emphatically not an argument for deletion. If it is POV then edit it. nableezy - 17:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Searching online the first results on Google are blogs like Electronic Intifada and B'tselem. ~~Meanwhile, Wikipedia does not have articles for things like the murder of Hannah Bladon in Jerusalem, even though that killing has coverage from every major newspaper.~~ So the criteria for notability is what seems POV here, as well as the sources used to cite it. This story is not even covered by the BBC, for example. If the standards for what is notable for a Wikipedia change, and sources and require less coverage, then it would be worth including.Avaya1 (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - A. Btselem is not a blog. B. the BBC is not the arbiter of what we cover here, and we have sources from the Associated Press, Times of Israel, and Ynet and Jpost are available, along with al-Jazeera and al-Arabiyya. We cover a huge number of violent acts against Israelis that have similar or less coverage, eg Bat Ayin axe attack or Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai. It is only Israeli acts of violence that seem to require a different standard to be included here. nableezy - 17:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oops there is an article for 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing. However, in this case there is a lot less coverage than for many stories/deaths which don't have Wikipedia articles. (Btselem is a personal website of an NGO). Avaya1 (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Uh yeah, you should probably check the RSN archives on B'tselem is. nableezy - 20:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable death per WP:NTEMP the article has sufficient WP:RS many Palestinians are killed in this conflict and some of them are notable. This one is notable. Lightburst (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there was an AfD 3 months after the incident, and the incident was found to lack WP:SIGCOV. Now, just 4 months later, the page is back, and still fails WP:SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Everyone knows an AfD is about who shows up to ivote. WP:RS exists, and notability is not temporary. Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep - this is per WP:NTEMP the article has sufficient WP:RS that I will !vote this way. also per WP:GNG and source quality.BabbaQ (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — more than enough reliable sources and continuing coverage. Obviously. Zero^talk 20:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A vast number of RSes around the world cover this event such as reuters, haaretz, timesofisrael, NYT, aljazeera, abcnews, nbcnews, jpost, middleeastmonitor,YNET NEWS, i24news and other forein news agency like btselem, maannews, wafa.Saff V. (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper News incidents gets covered in many national and even international newspapers. But to be considered notable they need to have extended coverage over time. this is lacking.--DBig Xrayᗙ 13:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is you who should read it. This article is not about breaking news. Zero^talk 14:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if its notable and I am not sure about that right now its written as one sided POV piece that should be deleted per WP:TNT --Shrike (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is ample coverage of this notable event, they talking about the video of him being shot in the back, and the aftermath. Dream Focus 15:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is an established precedent that violent acts in the long-running Arab-Israeli conflict merit articles if there is sufficient coverage in international news, at least for violence committed by Palestinians. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Halamish stabbing attack, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lions' Gate stabbings, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beersheva bus station shooting (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting. See comments in those AfDs in which the argument that carried the day was Clearly not a routine event, so NOTNEWS does not apply. Or Wide international coverage, SUSTAINED national coverage. As to whether or not there is such coverage, this continues to be covered in the international press and even more so in the Arabic press. See for example this AP story from July 22 2019, 8 months after the event. Or in Arabic, sources show coverage in July 2019, Al-Arabiya special in July 2019. Per that established precedent and the continuing coverage, keep. nableezy - 18:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that the incidents you list all had WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, whereas in this case the WP:RS coverage in the months since this accidental death during a live-fire security incident is as a case example in a longer story stating that investigators have found no evidence that this is anything other than the sad death of a physically and mentally incapacitated individual who walked into the street during a live-fire security operation. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continued coverage is not needed per WP:NTEMP. The death was notable, and widely published- and that notability is not temporary. However, Israel is just now probing these deaths. There are articles from July 22, 2019 New York Times, it is an AP article which was picked up by ABC and most other news organizations. If it is behind a paywall, you can read the AP article here. The Saratogian. The death only happened eight months ago, but the probe will likely lead nowhere as the article states. Lightburst (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article cited to the NYTimes is NOT behind a paywall. It is simply NOT ON the NYTimes website. The Times often posts AP and other wires services stories on its web page, put does not maintain them there. It, seems, as far as I can tell, to archive only stories that it has edited, not wire service breaking news that stories it briefly posts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you three sources showing continuing coverage, including the Associated Press showing that continued coverage internationally. Also including a feature in a broadcast from Al-Arabiyya, and another Arabic source. You have authored a number of articles on Palestinian violence against Israelis that have considerably less coverage ongoing coverage, eg this. Funny how it is only Israeli violence against Palestinians and not Palestinian violence against Israelis you believe should be excised from the encyclopedia. nableezy - 22:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I do invite editors to compare this incident with the 2015 Jerusalem bus attack taht Nableezy references.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the favored argument of the one set of rules for one side and another set for the other. Thanks for being so blatant about it at least. nableezy - 23:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Jerusalem bus attack, a terrorist attack on a civilian bus in which innocent passengers were murdered in cold blood, had WP:INDEPTH, WP:DIVERSE coverage when it took place, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in the years since, and WP:LASTING IMPACT, albeit page could use improvement. This death in the crossfire of a security incident has meets none of those criteria.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is all very obviously untrue. This is an article on Israeli forces killing an unarmed man or murdered in cold bold, has WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE coverage and the only reason it does not have coverage spanning years is that the event is less than a year old. It does however have coverage up to a couple of weeks ago, an article by the Associated Press that you, seemingly in bad faith, excised from the article on spurious grounds (could have just googled the title to find the right url). The article on the bus attack has coverage from late 2015 from the time of the attack and a bit more at the time of a conviction in June the following year and some fluff about a plague in September. Its coverage spans from October 2015 to September 2016. Nothing since. Here we have coverage from December 2018 till July 2019. Explain to me again how this is not what it so obviously is. nableezy - 02:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I excised a misleading, dead link as I discussed above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a deadlink entirely, replacing it with a {{fact}} instead of either just tagging it {{dl}} or, you know, spending the 5 seconds it took to find a working link by googling the title. Funny how the link you removed is the one that makes a mockery of your attempts to claim there is no continuing coverage, huh. nableezy - 15:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The link was not merely dead, it was misinformation because the story was not a New York Times story at all. It was an AP story. The link made it look as though there had been NYTimes article about this crime when there was in fact no such article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really see a point in continuing this little sideshow, but the reference you removed included agency=Associated Press. Using a malformatted reference markup for a source you know is reliable as an excuse to remove it entirely reeks of bad faith. As does pretending this artice does not have sustained coverage that is equivalent to or exceeds that of articles you have an established record of supporting inclusion for and even creating. Just so long as it is Palestinian violence that is. nableezy - 18:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT link was archived and is still available by the way. So there's also that. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archived by Wayback, NOT by the Times.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, it is not in the NYTimes archive because it was an AP story that ran on the Times website during a brief news cycle. NYTimes does not archive the wire service current events articles it briefly posts. When the Times deems a story significant, it assigns one of its own reporters to the story (it has a bureau in Israel for the purpose.) Therefore, it was misleading to have this on the page as a NYTimes story.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith is exhibited in your incorrect assertion that 2015 Jerusalem bus attack "coverage spans from October 2015 to September 2016. Nothing since." despite the fact that there was a 2018 article on the page when you wrote that comment. and, of course, you could have searches, and at the top of your search you would have found a Law360 article from earlier this week, Facebook Defeats Appeal Claiming It Aided Hamas Attacks. I, however, recognize that you are not required to improve the articles you discuss. Any more than I am required to go searching articles for a valid reference to add to a page that, in my opinion, clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:CRIME and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and should, therefore, be deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the MFA memorial site? Yeah, thats not a reliable source, sorry. Oh, sorry maybe the ToI piece that once mentions one of the victims in an article about his son. Perhaps I should have made it clear that I was referring to reliable sources about the article in question, not those tangential articles that editors are known to use to feign actual coverage. Bad faith is removing a source you know is reliable and you know disproves claims you are making because of a dead link. I think thats really quite enough on that topic though, and I dont plan on responding to repeated badgering from you about my !vote. nableezy - 18:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. I meant the article by David Horovitz: The relegitimizer: A terror victim’s son partners with government to combat BDS; His father was killed on a bus in 2015. "has become a dedicated anti-terrorism activist since the killing of his father — pressing Facebook to prevent the abuse of its platform for the incitement of terrorism, challenging international hypocrisy and inaction in the face of Palestinian terrorism, and, most significantly, now pouring his considerable energies into “Concert” as its volunteer chairman." It shows WP:LASTING, which the EVENT we are discussing here lacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, thats the ToI piece that once mentions one of the victims in an article about his son. Thats the those tangential articles that editors are known to use to feign actual coverage. But again, please stop badgering me, Im not exactly fond of your favorite pastime of disrupting AfDs. nableezy - 20:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this page is an Wikipedia:Orphan, an indication of lack of notabililty.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa I ran Nableezy's assertion that "in Arabic, sources show coverage in July 2019" source through gTranslate and it is press release datelined: "Palestinian Foreign Ministry, Ramallah." A government press release is not WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, thats the location, not the author. And the other Arabic piece is from al-Arabiyya. nableezy - 16:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing, you are arguing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, even though this reads like a Foreign Ministry press release, not least because the page is topped with a colorful official seal that reads: State of Palestine - Ministry of Foreign Affairs". The gTranslate text reads : "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants on Sunday called on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to quickly prosecute Israel for the killing of 22-year-old Mohammed Hossam Habali, and to open a serious investigation into the ongoing crimes of occupation against Palestinians. In a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates condemned the heinous field execution committed by the Israeli occupation soldiers deliberately against Al-Habali during the storming of Tulkarm at dawn today. The martyr Mohammed al-Habali is a person with disabilities. The ministry considered that the crime is a horrible indictment for the brow of mankind." Not WP:SIGCOV. A rehashed press release posted on Radio Sawa. But can you explain why it reads "the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates condemned the... committed by the Israeli occupation soldiers deliberately against Al-Habali during the storming of Tulkarm at dawn today." I ask because it looks like the press release was released in December 2014, when the death occurred.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, here's the thing, a Foreign Ministry doesnt usually refer to itself in the third person. And beyond that, continued coverage is demonstrated by, hello, the Associated Press on July 22 2019 or al-Arabiyya in July 2019, in addition to that source. You can keep pretending those sources dont exist, you can even try to keep coming up with nonsense reasons to excise it from the article. It does however exist, it is cited in the article, and it shows that even internationally this continues to receive coverage. nableezy - 17:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as dawn today, result of one language being ambiguous in its phrasing and translating to another language that is not. That line would be better translated as at fajr (dawn) that day. nableezy - 17:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Churnalism.

I'm not ignoring them. I'm arguing that sources found fail WP:NEWSEVENT, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:DIVERSE, and WP:EFFECT. A man was killed. There have been calls for an investigation, and, then, an assertion not widely covered that the investigation was not thorough enough, all of which is WP:MILL. There has not been WP:LASTING impact. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A US based wire service running an article detailing that lack of investigation on this some 8 months later is not diverse or continued lol. Sure buddy, whatever you say. Run of the mill when soldiers shoot a mentally handicapped person in the back of the head on a quiet street, apparently unprovoked. Run of the mill when a human rights organization finds and releases video footage of that, directly contradicting the military's earlier assertions. It is so run of the mill that from Saudi Arabia to Qatar to the United States news sources are still running stories about. Yeah, it is very obviously run of the mill. nableezy - 20:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a minor flurry of coverage when the event happened, and, 7 months later, a brief revisit that produced no certainty about what happened, a very slender thread on which to argue for CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. I am also concerned that all sources are about an accusaion that this death during a tense security operation was a criminal act because evidence is lacking and the investigation inconclusive. What we have is an article about an unsubstantiated accusation. And ZERO indication of WP:LASTING impact. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And he makes that argument while creating 2019 California stabbing rampage. It is breathtaking to watch tbh. nableezy - 16:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure buddy, your concern about a "tense security operation" is flatly rejected by the reliable sources in the article. Your wish that we only cover Palestinian violence is interesting but not relevant to our efforts to build an encyclopedia. Kindly stop disrupting the AfD with your unsourced babblings. Thank you in advance. nableezy - 15:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, other than a scant 160 words in an AP piece (out of around 1,500 on other subjects) - which fails WP:INDEPTH. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the al-Arabiyya story? Or did you not read the entirety of the AP piece? As it goes back to Habali, repeatedly, and the subject of the story is the lack of any progress in the so-called investigations by the Israelis in, hello, Habali (and others) cases. nableezy - 15:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All coins have two sided, and, yes, I expect that Icewhiz saw Al Aribiya, an inconclusive series of video clips demanding that what Al Arabiya believes to be true must be proven, very line the POV AP story filed from Gaza. The other side of the coin is that Israel has investigated, and also found nothing dispositive. But take a step back and it becomes clear that this story with its brief news cycle, so little CONTINUED, and no LASTING, fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 85: / Line 85: @@
 ::::::::: No [[WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE]], other than a scant 160 words in an AP piece (out of around 1,500 on other subjects) - which fails [[WP:INDEPTH]]. [[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 15:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 ::::::::::Did you miss the al-Arabiyya story? Or did you not read the entirety of the AP piece? As it goes back to Habali, repeatedly, and the subject of the story is the lack of any progress in the so-called investigations by the Israelis in, hello, Habali (and others) cases. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 15:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)</small>
+:::::::::::All coins have two sided, and, yes, I expect that Icewhiz saw ''Al Aribiya'', an inconclusive series of video clips demanding that what ''Al Arabiya'' believes to be true must be proven, very line the POV AP story filed from Gaza. The other side of the coin is that Israel has investigated, and also found nothing dispositive.   But take a step back and it becomes clear that this story with its brief news cycle, so little CONTINUED, and no LASTING, fails [[WP:SIGCOV]].[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 16:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)