Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adoption of Ala'a Eddeen


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 11:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Adoption of Ala'a Eddeen

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article, while well sourced, offers absolutely no encyclopedic value, news coverage does not mean that the event has WP:EFFECT (and thus not notable). (This one obviously doesn't). Touching, only if it didn't read like a propaganda piece for the US Army where Scott would carry Alaa into the sunset. Yazan (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions.  —Yazan (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  —Yazan (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep A notable topic that was reported at CNN, ABC, PBS and many other reliable sources. Wikipedia hosts many articles on the subject what went wrong in Iraq. Why not host a single article on something that went good? WP:EFFECT does not apply for this case because the soldiers from this unit are in process of trying to bring many more special need kids to US--Mbz1 (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I am afraid that the nominator's claim that the article is "a propaganda piece for the US Army" is yet another conformation that the author of this book got most things about European liberalism right please see page 85.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't access the page, but from the title of the book "While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within", I sense that you're calling me either a radical Islamist, or leftist idiot who's oblivion of radical Islam. I might be wrong though.
 * Regardless of what type of idiot you think I am, I would suggest discussing the merits of the article rather than the editor. Yazan (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not call you anything, and I have no idea why you cannot access the Google book. Here's one more link. I mention this book because it speaks about this very case that is described in the article in the this very content you refer to it as being propaganda for US army. Because you were not able to get to the book I clarified my comment above. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can access Google Books, and I can see the book but there's no preview available for that page 85. Anyway, this is beside the point and I suggest we just wait for other opinions. Yazan (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we made an interesting discovery! It means that google book have different previews for the user in different countries. Unbelievable! OK, back to the subject: in a few words, the author of the book says that for European war on terror means Guantanamo, and US "presence in Iraq" is Abu Ghraib, and no European news agency ever reported on the adaption of Ala'a. --Mbz1 (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Mbz1, in Syria we had around 3 million Iraqi refugees (roughly 15% of Syria's population) because of the war, so you'll have to excuse me for feeling that a US soldier adopting an Iraqi kid as a pitiful act in the great landscape of things (as much as it is an honorable one on an individual level). And to be honest, I feel that the coverage has the imprints of everything that is wrong with how the US deals with this. I truly hope you're not equating this with the horror that is Abu Ghraib, or Guantanamo. Anyway, this is not an easy topic to debate here, nor is this the place for it (a glass of beer comes to mind). I don't think this deserves an article on Wikipedia, and I don't think it meets the requirements for either WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. Best! Yazan (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete With all respect Mbz1, and I do hugely respect you, I disagree on this issue. The article is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. The issue was taken up by the US media because it placates the guilt many in the US feel about Iraq. Note how suitable the boy was for this purpose; he was not handicapped because of the action of any US soldier. Recipients of the story can be heartwarmed and can be restored to a sense that they are decent and that what happened is right. Yet this is just a media wrought to give such people a temporary sense of relief. Quite aside from patriotism it makes economic sense, because advertisers reward well for mawkish stories that pull in this way on the heartstrings. In another month the story will be dead (unless Sarah Palin takes it up). I know you are working at achieving the right balance, and sensing grief on all sides. But you didn't get it right this time! --Epipelagic (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I have struck my entry above since it has been established that there is significant coverage from reliable sources over a reasonable period of time. Wikipedia is about verifiability and notability, not worthiness. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, "the story" happened in 2003. So far it has been covered from 2005 to 2007.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I search engine tested this
 * Googling "Alaa Eddine" adoption - 186 results
 * Google news search "Alaa Eddine" - 2 foreign language results (not sure if they deal with this story.)
 * I think this could justifiably be deleted under the rationale that Wikipeida is not the news or simply that the subject matter is not notable.NickCT (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * CommentIn 2007 "CNN profiled Scott and Ala’a’s story in its "Heroes: An All-Star Tribute"". The story got to the final round. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It is presented as an event, but it is also largely a biography of two individuals known only for one thing, contrary to WP:BLP1E. As an event, it seems deletable by reference to WP:NOTNEWS as a human interest news item. Edison (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not an authority, though it appears to me there is not enough substance here for a standalone encyclopedia article. Though the human story behind is an impressive one. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I was skeptical initially and would like to change my vote. During previous days additional references were added to this article. EVENT guides us to reflect on depth of coverage, duration of coverage and diversity of sources. The provided sources include mainstream reliable sources (CNN, CBS News, Fox News even public PBS among others). Those take in depth insight, zooming in into this event, the event continues to be covered for number of years since year 2005 till 2010. Those are clearly characteristics of a notable event. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Emotional story, for sure...but why should *this* be highlighted, and not one of the other, literally *millions*, of other moving human stories? Did it have a wider impact .. beyond those it affected? I cannot see that. Also; Epipelagic (talk) makes some very good point, IMO. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep exactly from Mbz1 reasons: such coverage is very rare. There aren't millions of reports, and this adoption got a lot of attention for such case. Broccolo (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

--Mbz1 (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've said already, and I'd like to repeat one more time please:
 * 1) This article is not a news article because the story that started in 2003 was reported repeatedly at least from 2005 to 2010 by many reliable sources.
 * 2) The story behind the article is not an event because it does have WP:EFFECT (a growing campaign to bring more orphaned and disabled Iraqi children to US.)
 * 3) The story behind the article is notable because
 * 4) This story In 2007 "CNN profiled Scott and Ala’a’s story in its "Heroes: An All-Star Tribute"". The story got to the final round.
 * 5) There's not a single valid reason to delete the article.
 * Keep - received significant coverage from reliable sources over a long period of time. Accusations of 'propaganda' aren't a good enough reason to delete the article: if it was a notable news story, it should have an article, whatever the reason it was initially reported. If it has POV issues, that's a matter to be addressed through editing, not deletion. Robofish (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Edison and nom. Passionless   -Talk  23:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is definitely getting popular with wikipedia readers.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mbz1 and Epipelagic. Given depth and duration of reliable sourcing, opposition to the article seems unfounded. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * keep There's sufficient sourcing over an extended period of time such that there's more than enough sourcing and clearly isn't running into WP:NOTNEWS issues or anything similar. As Robofish observers, whether or not this first came to attention due to propaganda isn't relevant to whether or not we should have an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.