Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Said Bourarach


 * 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   delete. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Death of Said Bourarach

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a one time event with little coverage at the time, and even less ongoing. Fails Notability (criminal acts) by virtue of not having "multiple, independent sources" Lionel (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Lionel (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  —Lionel (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Most hits on Google show this article and the countless Wikipedia mirrors. It's getting a lot of free publicity. The inflammatory tone of the article IMO is a concern. Lionel (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, most hits on Google are in French. This article could use some assistance from users who speak French (unfortunately, I don't), but it has received a great deal of publicity in French-language media. Also, your comment about "free publicity" seems to suggest that you may have a personal bias behind your desire to delete this article. I don't know how the writing could be construed as "inflammatory", anyway. The JDL is a very, very extreme organization, and its history of promoting violence is well-known and not controversial at all. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do have a personal bias: the truth. In this case the truth of the matter is not yet known, yet the title of the sole source is French Jews killed Muslim out of racist motives. The bias of the source couldn't be more obvious. This source has convicted the suspects, and somehow determined the motive to be racist. It seems however, Stonemason, that you may have a bias by your implication that the JDL promoted this tragedy. Anyone reading the source would find it extraordinary to implicate the JDL: that's why I tagged the See Also.  Full disclosure: I'm not in JDL, not a Zionist, not a Jew, and I eat bacon. Lionel (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said the entire JDL promoted the tragedy, only that the attacks were carried out by a young man who is a member of the JDL and who embraces their ideology. The "See Also" link simply means that there is a relationship between the two topics, it says nothing about the type of relationship, nor does it "implicate". Stonemason89 (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Most of the media attention is in French and has not really been covered in the English speaking world. IJA (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's notable in one language, shouldn't it be notable in them all? I don't think that is a legitimate reason to delete. There's nothing stopping us from using French-language sources in an English-language article. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I said above, if it's notable in one language (French), then it's notable in every language. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for the following reasons
 * )There is no article on the subject in the French language Wikipedia, meaning that any argument of it being notable in French is false. (While there is a brief mention of the event on the French Wikipedia, even it isn't consistent with this article, which is beside the point)
 * ) While there is nothing wrong with using foreign language sources, there aren't any major national/international sources which seem to be covering it. Some news sites may have information on it, but there are plenty of news reports on events which aren't on Wikipedia.
 * ...thus the article appears to fail notability guidelines. --khfan93 (t) (c) 23:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That first point is wrong. The non-existence or existence of a Wikipedia article proves nothing at all &mdash; except perhaps statements as to what Wikipedia editors care to write about. As to the second: Where did you actually look?  I found this coverage by TF1 News, this coverage by Le Progrès, this and this coverage by Le Figaro, this coverage by CultureFemme, and this coverage by Le Point, and this Associated Press report (carried by Le Nouvel Observateur) in a matter of a minute or so.  But then I knew what French word for "security guard" to search for.  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Le Progres link is dead, neither Le Figaro source is about the victim, and they predate the crime anyway, the CultureFemme appears biased. "Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act" but IMO we're not there yet. Lionel (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * False on pretty much every claim. The Le Progrès article was there when I wrote the above and is still there now, and just required a little thinking on your part to find.  There's no reason to suppose that the CultureFemme article is biased, since it appears to be simple reportage of statements made.  And the Le Figaro articles would be amazingly prescient to pre-date the incident (which of course they clearly do not) given that in fact they describe the events and the subsequent discovery of the body.  I have to ask, given what you erroneously claim:  Have you actually read the Le Figaro and CultureFemme articles? Uncle G (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Initially I scanned the sources. I went back just now and read them as best I could with my limited French. The sources are in fact relevant. I forgot that in Euro they transpose Day & Month. Specifically, the TFI and first Le Progres are just basic run of the mill police (or should I say gendarme) blotter reports and at this point the victim's identity is still a mystery. The 2nd Le Progres is about a small protest. I was mistaken about my suspicion of CultureFemme. It isn't biased, just the opposite: it disputes any racial motive. Le Point also addresses the crime and it too disputes racial motivation. Jewish/JDL assertions were non-existent. The user who contested my PROD wrote in the edit summary "A major event in the history of religious violence in France." Nothing could be further from reality. The racial/Jewish connection, that being the rationale for notability, isn't there.  Lionel (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your statement that CultureFemme is not biased because it "disputes any racial motive" doesn't make sense. Disputing a racial motive is a bias, by definition, just like claiming one is. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is my assessment. We are each entitled to one.--khfan93 (t) (c) 00:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just to note a minor BLP violation.  In the title.  The title asserts that the accused (living people) committed a murder.  There is no indication of either a confession or conviction of murder, however.  Whether RS support for notability is unearthed, or not, the article as it stands is a BLP violation.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC) This has now been addressed.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously supported in reliable sources - of which Wikipedia is not one, so the fact that this subject doesn't have an article on a (smaller) different language version of Wikipedia is of no consideration. Weakopedia (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the death of a man in France is supported by sources. But since when does that justify an article? I guess when, according to an editor, it's "a major event in the history of religious violence in France." As it turns out the single source that makes that claim is too over-the-top biased to take seriously.   Lionel (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - what we've got is a terribly written, badly sourced, not very notable, news story. I might be willing to change my opinion if someone did a proper re-write, but given the BLP violations we cannot keep this in the hope someone will fix it.--Scott Mac 10:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per ScottMac ukexpat (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * - comment - I have trimmed the article to comply with policy especially BLP and exceptional claims about living people require exceptional citations and suchlike. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete One source is not sufficient notability.40Chestnut (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * - — 40Chestnut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete this piece of obvious utter conjecture. This man is not notable and neither is his demise, with all due respects to his family and friends. IZAK (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep:
 * --Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Playmobileonhishorse has added those citations, a couple of them are quite lengthy, translated to english and  Off2riorob (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The citations are nothing more than what are known as police or crime blotter reports that many papers have for a variety of crimes that they think may interest readers but have no great notability in and of themselves. IZAK (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally wrong. See :
 * Sorry, I've not the time to translate. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've not the time to translate. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've not the time to translate. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete—the killing of any non-notable individual is generally covered in all the major news outlets in western countries (or all major local news outlets in larger countries). This does not mean that every death needs to go on Wikipedia, even if sources exist. Wikipedia is not news. —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you think that the surrounding issues and the coverage in multiple coverages that are going to be covering and reporting this is actually clearly notable and the trial will also be notable and well covered, I have seen quite a few such well covered trial and murders covered here. I think as a neutral, I am not an Israeli and not an Arabic person, but as I see, this will clearly be a well reported issue and a high profile trial that will likely be covered in multiple countries as it already is. Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "are gong to be" "will also be" "will clearly be" "will likely be" - you know what I'm going to say--Scott Mac 22:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If the article is deleted and any of what you said happens, you would have all the justifications a deletion review. As Scott MacDonald correctly noted, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Ynhockey (Talk) 15:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree w/Ynhockey, with all due respect. If the article is deleted due to the apparent consensus, I don't believe a deletion review is appropriate--inasmuch as the deletion will have been proper.  However, should notable coverage appear in time, then at some future point in time after such coverage has developed then re-creation would IMHO be appropriate.  All of that is, of course, contingent upon there being the appropriate measure of coverage in the future in RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I like the fact that there are articles from different countries (that militates in favor of notability). But I'm not at this point seeing the breadth of coverage that we see in articles we deem notable, as reflected in number of RS-coverage newspaper articles.  Also, as the article has now been trimmed, it seems less notable on its face, references aside.  But I'm holding back on !voting as I am interested in seeing what further indicia of RS-coverage may be unearthed, to reflect notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. As the clear majority of the above comments (75% or so have !voted delete at this point) reflect, while there is some international coverage, there simply isn't the level of coverage in terms of number of articles by RSs that would reflect notability for WP purposes.  If appropriate coverage does develop over time, I would support the article being recreated.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:44, 26 July 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.