Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Bushnaq, Dudu Yifrah and Micha Yaniv


 * 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. - OK, consensus is probably to merge with Everest Peace Project - but there's not really a consensus which way the merge should go. Since deletion is not being suggested, I suggest the merge discussion is continued on the talk pages. Scott Mac 14:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ali Bushnaq, Dudu Yifrah and Micha Yaniv

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Though I'm quite sure I will receive some backlash here, I cannot see how it's Not a WP:BLP1E. In my opinion, the contents should be merged to Everest: A Climb for Peace, OR Everest Peace Project. These persons are unimportant outside of this single event. Maashatra11 (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Each and every Everest climb is important, and we have quite a few articles about those climbs, please see here: Timeline of climbing Mount Everest. That particular climb might be even more important then some others are.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC) &mdash; Warring over users im/partiality moved to talk page. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  18:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. A bit POINTy, for a hook in the DYK queue.  We have coverage of similar events.  Yes, as nom anticipates, a TROUT is clearly his rightful due.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't base a vote solely on an argument to avoid in Deletion discussions. Can you give me examples of "similar events"? (I remind you that it is not an event, but BLPIE's) Also, if required, I'll have no problem renominating it after the DYK is over, and on the same grounds. Maashatra11 (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It will be better to re-nominate it after DYK. It cannot go to DYK like that.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition to other stuff exists -- which is of course a fine reason, as part of a larger argument -- sufficient coverage exists.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The event is notable per the sources and should be handled separately from the documentary because there are aspects that should be detailed in one article and not the other (production for the movie and details not mentioned in the movie for the event). It appears to meet the General Notability Guideline with the significant coverage (although more should be added since the primary source is over used) and WP:EVENT might also be covered if climbs of Mt. Everest are considered historically significant (not sure if they are or not), has worldwide coverage, and has diverse coverage (at least a page in a book, a documentary, and newspapers in this case). This isn't about the individuals so BLP doesn't apply to the deletion although a title change might be appropriate. I also second removing the deletion request while this is DYK and we can think about it more, make some improvements maybe, and copy and paste are arguments back in if you come to the same conclusion.Cptnono (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I support renaming this to reflect to an actuall Mount Everest climb and not individual BLP1E's. I have no idea which substituted name would be appropriate though. Maashatra11 (talk) 07:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That should take care of a big issue. I'm not sure if that is possible before it hits the main page, though. Something as easy as "Ascent of Mt. Everest by Ali Bushnaq, Dudu Yifrah and Micha Yaniv" might work but it is a little wordy. Is this something we can go into more after the DYK or is it too much of a problem currently?Cptnono (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge - to Everest: A Climb for Peace . All the sources for this article are actually sources for the movie, I can see no need why two articles are required for the same topic. Gatoclass (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No they aren't. And there might be others not in the article. (these were alla quick search so not all have been vetted completely but there is some coverage out there that details the climb and not the movie)Cptnono (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if any of the individual climbers are notable in their own right, there may be a case for separate articles on them. My point is that the three are apparently only linked by this one climb and we already have an article for that, which is the documentary article. We don't need two articles on the same climb. Gatoclass (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, well said. Each climber should have its own article (if they are deemed individually notable, which is unclear at the moment), and the "At the mountain" section should be summarized in each of the biographies. The "At the mountain" section could also be merged into Everest: A Climb for Peace. I think it is the best resolution. Maashatra11 (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As an alternative, I suppose the article could be renamed "Everest Peace Project" if the climb is considered notable independent of the documentary. But I think the current name is clumsy and OR-ish and too narrow in focus. Gatoclass (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, We have it already. Maashatra11 (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)An article on the event (along with the participants) is inherently different than an article on a documentary. As stated above, there are aspects of the climb that may not be in the movie (not sure) while stuff in the movie such as production details should not be here. And if both the movie and the event are notable then there is no problem in having two articles. If the movie isn't notable some info could be merged in here but so far it looks like the event itself is. Acrassicauda and Heavy Metal in Baghdad would be an example of how this could work well. (no not a OTHERSTUFF argument since it is just an example)
 * (post edit) I doubt the three pass BLP1 on their own unless being the first Palestinian over 7000ft qualifies or the 5th (I need to double check that number) Israeli atop the mountain is notable.
 * (edit conflictx2) "Everest Peace Project" would work for me.
 * (edit conflictx3) No that is a redirect so it would simply need to be unpointed and this content merged (not sure how that works with the talk page discussion and history though). No it isn't (oops). But if this one clim b is notable on its own (without considering the other 2) than it should have an article. Any thoughts on if it is?Cptnono (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I just discovered Everest Peace Project, an existing article which you suggested would be the renamed destination. Maashatra11 (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, as it seems the Everest Peace Project has organized more than one climb, I guess the article could be named "Everest Peace Project (2006 climb)" or something to differentiate it from the basic article. Gatoclass (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Summary style over there since it would overpower it otherwise.Cptnono (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the current Everest Peace Project article is very short, and given that this may be the only climb that has attracted significant media coverage, it might still make better sense to merge this content with the existing Everest Peace Project article. Gatoclass (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which would totally overpower it and make it a candidate for a split.Cptnono (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if it's the only thing the Project is notable for, it would be appropriate to be included in that article. Gatoclass (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said, Gatoclass (again)... Maashatra11 (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So nominate the other article for deletion then. This event appears to meet GNG regardless of if the group does or does not. I assume that the organization does but I haven't looked for sources. That is a separate conversation. I do agree that the other article need improvement but having three articles as discussed above seems like a fine idea with the rename.Cptnono (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's renamed, the article should reflect why the EVENT is notable per se. And this single event doesn't seem to stray away from WP:NOTNEWS, so it should be merged to either articles.Maashatra11 (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already explained my take on GNG and the Events guidelines being met and why NOTNEWS is not necessary applicable. So as it stands, we have a proposal that almost worked but failed for whatever reason so I guess we are at an impasse.Cptnono (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (outdenting) I'm really not sure what the best course of action is right now. I think at a minimum the article should be renamed to something like Everest Peace Project (2006 climb). Whether any of the three articles should also be merged into one another is a more complex question that would probably require more debate. Perhaps we should give some other people an opportunity to have their say. Gatoclass (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with a name change. Yes, other comments would be fantastic. Cptnono (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I should formally !vote, so my !vote is Rename to Everest Peace Project (2006 climb) as a minimum. I think I could probably also support a Merge to or with one of the other articles, two stub articles and one full article on essentially the same topic seems a bit untidy to me. Gatoclass (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If the whole content is merged to Everest: A Climb for Peace, there will be a fivefold expansion, and it's very likely that if nominated it will be accepted for a later DYK. So no worries about mentioning these guys in DYK. ;) Maashatra11 (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * CoolCptnono (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC) (Clarification: comment was cool but don't agree with merge there)


 * Merge into Everest: A Climb for Peace. That movie is a documentary focusing on the event, there is not much more about it, and the movie is not new, but from 2007, thus all waves have passed. Off course, it is not impossible to expand Everest: A Climb for Peace into a full scale article, but IMO it is unlikely, and if this happens, the article can split again into Everest: A Climb for Peace and Everest Peace Project (2006 climb). Deletion is out of question for obvious reasons - notability has been supported by the Dalai Lama and numerous sources. Merging into Everest Peace Project would grossly disbalance the latter - new peace climbs might be forthcoming. Materialscientist (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is no consensus on where and whether to merge, then as a minimum, I would also support renaming to Everest Peace Project (2006 climb). Materialscientist (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Everest: A Climb for Peace.AMuseo (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why to merge an article about a documentary with an article about real event. We do have many examples, when book, and/or movie and an article about real event have different articles. We have none that I know of to combine the two.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. The documentary overlaps too much with the event. Yes, it is possible to have both articles on the event and documentary, in the future, if there is enough material to expand the documentary (which I doubt). Materialscientist (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge with Everest: A Climb for Peace and rename to Everest Peace Project (2006 climb): The notability of the climbers is dependent on the event. WP:ONEEVENT applies. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with Everest Peace Project. Their climb was part of the peace project organization and should be included in that article. The documentary was separate from the other two climbs the project did and can stay in its own article. The climb was an accomplishment and is due to the organization.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is shaping up to be no consensus so far with reasonable arguments for keep, delete, merge to this, merge to that, merge to that and rename, and so on. My take on it is of course still the best ;) . One thing that I think is clear that if it sticks around a name change is needed immediately. Not sure if that impacts anyone's !vote or if I am misinterpreting what people are saying but wanted to mention it.Cptnono (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Due to concern here the article has been pulled from queue 4 and an imminent spot on the Main Page and relisted, as instructed, at T:TDYK pending resolution of this debate. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  00:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. Good, kind article about a notable, histrionically important event, has nothing to do with the news.--Broccoli (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What does "histrionically" mean anyway? Maashatra11 (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Notable event per sources. In addition, there are various aspects of this article that make it somewhat more unique than the standard climb. I therefore favor keeping it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A name change might be in order, but everything should be merged into this article. It is certainly more important than the movie. --Shuki (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment no one objected moving this article to Everest Peace Project (2006 climb) -so I did it. Now the only problem is that the article focuses on the biographies rather than on the event itself. Maashatra11 (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please move it back. I strongly object the move, deletion request is ongoing.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sweet. There were also other climbers on the team so that needs to be addressed. Maybe a layout change will make it appear like less of a biography. That is all stuff for the talk page, though. Thanks for pulling the trigger on the move.Cptnono (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. This being a deletion discussion page, I note that the majority have at this point !voted keep, and none (including the nom) had !voted for a straight deletion (though a substantial minority have supported a merge).  I would still !vote keep, for the reasons discussed above.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Looking at both the articles for the Everest Peace Project and for the documentary, it's clear to see that this is the main article, is notable from the sources, and should be kept. If either of the other two don't meet notability standards, then they should be nominated at AfD in order to be merged into this article, not the other way around. Silver  seren C 01:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I, for one, would not object to a snow close at this point.  Or a withdrawal by nom.  There is not a snowball's chance of deletion, as reflected in the above comments.  Waste of everyones' time.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2010 (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.