Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beheading video (3rd nomination)


 * 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 00:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Beheading video
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

1. It is synthesis. None of the sources treat "Beheading video" as a subject in itself, different from "Grey roof" or "Sitting dog." The references are merely media coverage of beheadings that involved videos. 2. It's pretty insensitive, to the point of being a BLP violation, since BLP covers deaths that are very recent and controversial or murders. How would you feel to have a loved one being listed for something like this a week afterwards? Howunusual (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Addendum. Virtually the entire text is unsupported by the cited sources:
 * "A beheading video is a type of video released by Islamist militant groups depicting interviews by hostages taken by said groups." None of the sources define the subject this way. And why would it be restricted to "Islamist...groups" by definition?
 * "The prelude to these videos usually shows the subject alive and pleading for their lives sometimes accompanied by their captors, sometimes not." None of the sources say that.
 * " The demands made are usually broad and general, such as total withdrawal of the hostage's nation's military forces from a particular Middle Eastern country, usually Iraq." None of the sources say that.
 * "Invariably, a video depicting the actual beheading is released a few days later." None of the sources say this. Howunusual (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The article seems to exist mainly to stereotype Islam. In addition to defining the subject as "Islamist", it was placed in the (very loaded) category "Islamism-related beheadings" as well as "War crimes committed by Islamist militant groups" (do most Muslims accept these acts as part of islam, and have most of the perpetrators been convicted of war crimes?). Howunusual (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Nomination fixed + reformatted mol  uɐɯ  22:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Vycl1994 (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  23:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * keep the third reference specifically talks about beheading videos used as a tactic in war and terrorism. This also mentions a recent beheading video as a subject.  talks about the issue as a form of propaganda. Like it or not, it is a phenomenon of the modern world, a bit like Gibbet cages from antiquity. wrt. BLP, yes it does apply, so we have to be careful, and fix the article if need be. Martin 4 5 1  00:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand where you're getting that. The first source you mention discusses the idea a bit, but not much. It is mostly about one particular killing. The others don't discuss "Beheading video" as a general, notable topic in its own right at all. Howunusual (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources NinjaRobotPirate provides below establish notability as a subject. The first highbeam source specifically mentions beheading videos as a form of propaganda. The original nytimes article is here. The third highbeam here talks about the impact of the videos. Martin 4 5 1  20:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Howunusual, as not a general notable topic. But this is just a vote-tally process. The previous AFD was voted keep based simply on the numbers, and very evidently regardless of the strength (or otherwise) of the arguments on either side. If enough users pile on with unsupported/weakly argued demands for it to be kept, it will be voted keep, and vice versa. Writegeist (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia users cannot abuse their power to censor information on acts of terrorism. I can't believe someone who supports the existence of Wikipedia would even suggest mass deletions of information on the violent terrorist attacks of our time. -bleak_fire_ (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia is not here to provide a soapbox or platform. It's an encyclopedia.  That means that we decide these issues with regards to notability, not emotional appeals. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. My first thought was that it wouldn't be notable, but I have found many sources that discuss the topic:, , , , , .  I can summarize the subscription links for people without an account on Highbeam Research, but they are definitely relevant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The last source you give about facebook created a fair amount of notable news at the time, the BBC covered it with comments from the British PM. Martin 4 5 1  20:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that story is about Facebook, not the subject of this article. Facebook probably has a policy on breastfeeding videos too, that does't justify an article on breastfeeding videos. Howunusual (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)  ...I'm starting to see Writegeist's point. Another of those sources is an op-ed about terrorist use of the Internet generally, not this subject. It can't be used as a source for anything except the op=ed writer's opinion. As for "distasteful"--that's not a reason given for the deletion. Oh well. As it stands, almost all of the body of the article can be deleted as unsourced... Howunusual (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Bleakfire. Wikipedia shouldn't censor this stuff just because it's distasteful. --Nick012000 (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC) — Nick012000 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep passes WP:N after good work by NinjaRobotPirate.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep well written, sources support claims in article. NinjaRobotPirate's recent rewrite helps, too.  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, if only on basis of frequency. There are many more "Grey roofs" and "sitting dogs" than there are "beheading videos". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:N thanks to NinjaRobotPirate's huge improvements (Thanks NinjaRobotPirate!). – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  20:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable subject, article sourced, and it is a topic per se. Passes WP:GNG well.-- cyclopia speak! 14:13, 29 August 2014 (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.