Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadar Goldin


 * 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. policy based arguments stated he fails WP:BIO1E, while the keeps hardly gave anything policy based at all. Secret account 18:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hadar Goldin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS, subject also fails per WP:BLP1E. See also: Oron Shaul - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

*Speedy Keep - Otherstuffexists is not a reason for deletion (per Oron Shaul comment). This persons kidnapping will have huge implications both in this conflict and politically. Both US president Obama and the UN has made comments about Goldin. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep is not a appropriate !vote anymore so I have changed it.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also Goldin does not fail WP:BLP1E he might by this moment fail point 1. But point 2 and 3 is just pure speculation from your side as this is the early hours of this story. And considering that his kidnapping is what every single news source in the world is covering, WP:BLP1E is not failed here.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I can use the will have argument for any article listed at AfD. Wikipedia does not cover everything in the news. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is not written as a news story. I would disagree that it fails BLP1E(especially the second criterion). I think the nomination was a bit premature. 331dot (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Even though I don't feel it necessary, given my clear statement about what I have done on this page, I am striking the above comment in favor of my comment below. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The abduction of Hadar Goldin changes the whole dynamic of this war. It ended a temporary cease fire, and escalated events on the ground.Juneau Mike (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So did the killing of 2 other IDF troops. This article I feel is a case of WP:TOOSOON, a rushed decision was made to make the article without looking to see what notability the subject has. Its a war, people are going to die and get captured in wars. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Far from insignificant figure. PatGallacher (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * you haven't addressed how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Also agree about WP:TOOSOON. Don Cuan (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This person has already a significant influence on the current evolution of the war. He is already a huge 'public' figure due to his captivity situation. Score Beethoven (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep its obviously important --Midrashah (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BLP1E if a captive and WP:NOTNEWS if dead. .Died in the war per recent IDF statements. That does not satisfy WP:BIO. No inherent notability for every dead soldier from any one army, as compared to war dead on the other side or in other recent conflicts. Edison (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest perhaps Merge with this article because the event is significant for breaking the ceasefire rather than the specific person involved.58.167.32.96 (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Fails WP:BLP1E, nn versus any one of thousands of deaths since this started.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Widely covered, significant event in complex war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShulMaven (talk • contribs) 02:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a reason why here on Wikipedia we do not make articles for every single thing that has been featured in the news. We are an encyclopedia not a newspaper or as someone else put it not CNN. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an event in a war which already has it's own entry. The event may be significant somewhat; the person is not.  I wouldn't even consider the event is significant enough to have its own page, let alone the person.  Hence why I suggested a merge. That's not to be insensitive to a person who has died in war but this is an encyclopaedia, not an obituaries page.58.167.32.96 (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ultimately just another casualty of war. He was not kidnapped but died along with other soldiers. Nothing notable as the alleged kidnapping did not occur. WWGB (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Still Keep. Still got a significant amount of coverage; clearly he was no ordinary "casualty of war" given the attention.  Even suspected abductions can be notable. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Removed duplicate vote - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Re-removed duplicate vote --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My vote was not a duplicate vote(and also not a vote) as the circumstances changed since my initial opinion(when he was thought to be a POW); I wished to state that I still want to keep based on the new circumstances. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If that was your intention, all you had to do was add a comment to your original !vote, not add a further !vote. WWGB (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought that doing so would be considered an attempt at rewriting history, and as I said I was clarifying that I still held my opinion given the new circumstances which does not render my previous opinion invalid or duplicate it. But, I accept your word that I might have approached this better. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed duplicate vote, again, and don't claim it wasn't made to look like a vote, it clearly is posing as one.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It was not a vote, as I clearly stated, no matter what it might "look like" to you. I don't appreciate motives and explanations being ascribed to me that I did not have and you cannot prove I had. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh. Whatever you think you were doing, you were doing it in the wrong way, and people were telling you this. You weren't listening. There was no more good faith left to be assumed. Three users informed you that your placement and markup closely resembles a vote. Either you were being willfully obtuse or you are trying to game the system. Now you've struck through your original vote in favor of your second one, which proves what we said all along. Doesn't matter what you appreciate when you get caught.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are ready to abandon assuming good faith based on one edit, that doesn't say much about you. As I said, I thought what I did was quite clear and I explained my reasoning. You are free to disagree or ask that I do something differently, but that doesn't mean I have nefarious motives. You are not inside my mind and cannot know my motives and reasons.  I know what I did and was comfortable with it.  If you do not believe me, there is nothing I can do. I'm not sure what I did to deserve your ire, but I hope you being "proven" correct was worth it. I didn't strike my comment for you, I did it to move on- which is what I will be doing now. 331dot (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:NOTNEWS Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BLP1E, a sad event to be sure but unless this becomes a turning point mentioned in the history books it's not noteworthy enough. --Zerbey (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:NOTNEWS As a hostage he would in all probability have become notable, but as a casualty he's not.TheLongTone (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete Per the above; another sad victim of war. : Probably most notable thing is he may have been a victim of Israel's Hannibal Directive. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: Since I posted above, there has been considerable discussion of/ opinions that his death is related to the Hannibal Directive, which may be main thing making him notable. NY Times ref ; Haaretz; Israel's I24news; IB Times; National Post. It definitely will have to be re-added to his article if it's kept and to the Hannibal Directive article. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Given others comments as well, changed to keep. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Per below the link to the Hannibal Directive is speculative as Hadar was never captured. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, what does it hurt? In the long run people will want information about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by POR613 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: This was widely publicized. His story is significant. Hhm8 (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Did I miss seeing a policy WP:BLP1EIDF which grants inherent notability to every killed soldier from one particular army? Edison (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep notable for being a captured POW and notable in the history of the Hannibal Directive -- Kendrick7talk 22:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * He was killed and was never a POW and okay his name can be redirected to Hannibal Directive then if you feel strongly about it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict or one of the articles related to the conflict. -- Versa geek  22:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Just another dead soldier. Newspaper notability comes from stuff done to and said about him by others, in the context of a larger news narrative, rather than any notable accomplishments of his own. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Per nom. A random dead soldier in no way changes the whole war. The Arab-Israeli conflict has been going on forever and will never end. MiracleMat (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- even if he is not personally notable, his story is relevant because of the immediate controversies that are likely to reverberate. He was an alleged victim of a high-profile kidnapping only to be proved to have died in as a casualty of war without ever having been kidnapped. He is the object of a permanently-significant case of a false (really, mistaken) news report that may have inflamed passions in a war-like situation. His name is associated with the report, and he (1) will be an example, and (2) his name will be the most firmly connected to it. The false story has its own life. Note well that some false victims (example: Simon of Trent), have Wikipedia articles about them.Pbrower2a (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another dead soldier. Why is every Israeli soldier who is captured (or presumed captured) presumed notable? We seem to be turning into a memorial for dead and captured Israeli soldiers and that is clearly not our purpose, any more than it is our purpose to be a memorial for dead and captured soldiers of any other country. Israel is not a special case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Violates WP:NOT and WP:NOT.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:RECENTISM is what is driving this, and further news reports have pretty much indicated that this is a non-issue. There is no way to objectively assess an individual's impact less than 24 hours after the incident in question, which is exactly what happened here (hence the BLP1E claim, which is accurate). This article suffers from a desire to get information out there without checking it, which is what the news does, not an encyclopedia. This is exactly why we are WP:NOTNEWS, and why we need to not act WP:TOOSOON when it comes to content. It is not our mission to be a 24-hour news source; we are an information-driven project. This article seems to be illustrating just about every issue WP has in a nutshell. For example, there are a ton of keep votes stating that his kidnapping is important, but since that didn't actually happen, what good are the votes, really? They're based on inaccurate information. If some time had passed before article creation, this AfD wouldn't have even been here, because this article wouldn't be here.  This is simply one incident in an ongoing conflict; it hasn't changed a thing about the overall conflict, and thus it is not noteworthy in WP terms. MSJapan (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E Kingsindian (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge salient info with Hannibal Directive and/or 2004 Israel-Gaza conflict. Quis separabit?  16:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge into 2004 Israel-Gaza conflict - he's not notable except for the one event of his suspected kidnapping. --GRuban (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I truly admire how multiple editors entirely independently and not coordinating in the least both declared that this should be merged into a 2004 conflict, during which time Hadar Goldin was roughly 13 years old. Get your act together Hasbara! -- Kendrick7talk 02:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is that Hadar even if he is dead has had a huge impact on this conflict. His end of life story caused the continued killing and bombing of Gazans. His death was reported on by every single media source in the world just because of that. To delete or merge this article would be going against Wikipedia notability guidelines.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * He was killed along with two other IDF forces that chattered the ceasefire, it is also a war we are talking about deaths are going to be reported on news outlets on both sides. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

— 94.234.170.198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep – Kingjeff (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Subject is notable per the events that he was involved in. WP:GNG is covered. Also the article is substantially expanded since the early Delete votes and may I say so that reasonings like "Yet another dead soldier" reasons for deletion are very weak.--94.234.170.198 (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * CommentSee WP:ONEEVENT. There is nothing to say about this person that cannot easily be contained in the article on "Protective Edge". The stuff to do with the Hannibal Directive is pretty speculative.TheLongTone (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep He is notable as the person whose capture and death changed the war. The event is notable, but his participation in the event is also notable.  He isn't the first person in a war to notably for dying.  Archduke in Austria for WWI anyone?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.195.193 (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Rubbish example: Franz Ferdinand was already notable. Princip might be a better example if we're talking 1914, but he did something. Goldin is simply somebody that something happened to.TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The episode of presumed capture was a significant turn of the war. lkitross (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * From whose point of view, he was NEVER captured and died along with two other IDF forces. Where is the notability? Are we going to make articles about every single IDF personal that dies and gets placed in the media as a result? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * He's the only one who was alleged kidnapped with lots of media stories on tha, and whether Israel would trade another 1000 prisoners to get him back. After it was announced he was dead, there were a number of stories about the Hannibal Directive being possibly the cause of his death. So he may be the only Israeli soldier who died so far whose name will be remembered. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And now it turns out the NY Times reported, and then censored per Israel's request, that the Hannibal Directive was used after his possible abduction, making him more newsworthy. (Which led to someone removing my original note in the article based on that report! But I found lots more other refs.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That statement is an outright, direct, and disgraceful misrepresentation of the Huffington Post article linked above. The HuffPo article discusses the Times being asked to omit a biographical detail concerning Goldin and does not report as fact, but merely refers to unspecified speculation, that the other subject was discussed with Israeli officials.   SPECIFICO  talk  01:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously if someone was going to put this in the article they'd be careful to be a bit more precise, without engaging in obsfucating euphemisms, of course.  Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 01:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There are a huge number of articles about the subject of the article, so it is clearly notable by any wikipedia standards. Avaya1 (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Clearly notably by any Wikipedia standards"? How? What makes him unique from all other casualties of war? And "many articles on the subject"... Wikipedia is not a database for every soldiers to ever die in a war. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Even suspected kidnappings can be notable. He isn't an ordinary casualty. There was significant worldwide coverage of this soldier, indicating some level of notability for a period of time. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete I'm sorry but we can't have article about every soldier to ever day in any war. At the end of the day, this is just another casualty of war. If he would be kidnapped, yes, it would make it "unique" (like Gilad Shalit), but since it wasn't... It's obvious it should be deleted. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the level of support, a speedy delete seems improper, even if this is eventually deleted. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - I !voted Speedy keep above but as that is not a appropriate vote anymore and as things have changed since I have now changed it to Strong Keep. Considering his impact on the war in the early days of August with Israel escalating the violence because of the actions against him. He was the center of news reports for days and are still mentioned. He is not "another soldier", he has impacted the war. He is within the scope of WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1 does does not apply to Hadar. Also WP:TOOSOON does not apply per extensive coverage since this happened and his impact on this war/dispute.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: His life was not notable, and neither was his death (one of over 60 IDF casualties in the 2014 Gaza war). The fact that his death was initially thought to have been a kidnapping, and caused a 72 hour cease-fire to collapse after only 90 minutes, does not make his life or death notable. Yonideworst (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? For someone who is not notable, he got extensive news coverage and his suspected kidnapping altered the course of the conflict. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * He didn't get any coverage. It was his suspected abduction that got coverage, and within a day it turned out that he was not abducted. Just because there was an error in the reporting, does not make his life or death notable. Yonideworst (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * His story was the reason to the escalation of violence from 1 August and onwards in this conflict. With more rocket fire from israel into Gaza and ground troops etc. His death was reported on by every major news source worldwide. Sorry but in this case your reasoning for deletion is weak.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:ONEEVENT. His death is a part of a bigger story on which there is already an article. The events of his death make more sense in the context provided by that article.TheLongTone (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:109PAPERS. Yonideworst (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you know that notability will be temporary here? 331dot (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Very simple. Notability was achieved thanks to a mistake -- the very definition of temporary. Once the mistake was fixed, the notability vanished. Yonideworst (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So mistakes can't be notable after they occur? 331dot (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have to say that since the mistake was fixed within a day, "notability" became temporary. Had the mistake langished for decades before being discovered, then it would have been a different story. Yonideworst (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment to closing user: May I suggest that after this AfD is closed that the articles name is changed to Death of Hadar Goldin. As it has been established by both those !voting Keep and Delete that it was the events surrounding his death that was notable. His death is was made the war escalate and the world press reporting on this story even more. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're assuming the AFD will close as a keep. I would not support creating an article to Death of Hadar Goldin, as even that's not sufficiently notable for an article (see WP:109PAPERS). It could be a section within the 2014 Gaza War, that's as much notability as I think this topic deserves. Yonideworst (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed you cant assume this will be kept just as I cant assume it will be deleted. Im sorry but his life is not notable, this is why we have WP:ONEEVENT, the ceasefire being broken because IDF personal were killed I think we can all agree on is notable enough to be in the article, think bigger picture here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you both so certain it should be deleted? You give no reason beyond personal opinions with no basis in guidelines. Also it appears desperate to jump at every opportunity to state how unnotable this person is. While all facts points to the opposit. When closed this article should be renamed.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF please, we and plenty of others here have correctly cited the guidelines, sorry if the facts ring true but he was killed along with 2 other IDF, it made the news from his possible abduction (WP:NOTNEWS) and nothing more. Are you prepared to show some sources that Hadar himself directly impacted the war here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What does WP:AGF have to do with this? I could say the same thing to you. What is up with this combative behavior. I have already stated above at my Keep reasoning why NOTNEWS does simply not apply. It is difference of opinions. I state it again, when the article is Kept as it should be considering the guidelines concernings Biographies of notable people the article should be renamed to reflect the Death of....--BabbaQ (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * fyi So, within only the past 24 hrs (NewsGoogle time-limited search), there's an whole article in the The New Yorker : Hadar Goldin and the Hannibal Directive. And there are new articles - today - focused in whole or part on Goldin in tens of news outlets in many languages ranging from  Argentina Página/12 to the German tabloid Bild to major Israeli and Jewish papers both left Haaretz, The Jewish Daily Forward and right Algemeiner Journal, Arutz Shevaand anti-Isreal websites including Electronic Intifada  dozens of new stories, not even counting the many news outlets that refer to the incident/man, but not by name "alleged kidnapping of an Israeli officer..." and I only News-googled in the Latin alphabet.   Goldin'a name is attached to not 1 not 2 but 3 major issues/incidents in this war.  1) the erroneous belief that Goldin had been kidnapped, and its consequences to the course of the war. 2) the use of tunnels as attack and kidnap conduits  and 3) the Hannibal Directive. Frankly, although I can see many reasons why Israel's defenders might not like this article and might want to take it down, and many reasons why Israel enemies might not like this article and might want to take it down, it is plain that the name is attached to the incident and people will expect to be able to find him on Wikipedia.ShulMaven (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 07:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep as Death of Hadar Goldin. I think there's no doubt anymore about the availability of in-depth, sustained coverage of this event. There's also a strong case for the event as a catalyst for "something else of lasting significance" (per WP:EFFECT) in that his death and perceived kidnapping resulted in scores and perhaps over a hundred Palestinian deaths in the context of the Israeli military response. (See Haaretz: "Dozens of innocents killed in IDF's 'Hannibal' protocol". NY Times: "Brig. Gen. Michael Edelstein, the commander of the Gaza division, said Thursday in a telephone briefing that most of the casualties in Rafah had occurred in the first hours after Hamas fighters “tried to kidnap our officer and bring him into civilian places." in "Israeli Procedure Reignites Old Debate")--Carwil (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that "Death of Hadar Goldin" more appropriate and in line with many articles focusing on individual's deaths when they have some larger import. I guess technically we should do a move discussion on the talk page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suggested the same above. And I agree that it should be moved to Death of... Right now if possible. Or straight after closure of the AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Death of Hadar Goldin can be covered with a section is already covered with 3 four sentences in the article Hannibal Directive. It's His death is simply not notable enough nor significant enough to have its own right article. It appears that having an article for him (or his death) would be a violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL Yonideworst (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt this article was created and edited mostly by "friends, relatives, acquaintances" per the wording of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, so it is hardly at issue here. -- Kendrick7talk 03:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're going to quote the policy, quote the full context: "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements" (underline added for emphasis). It doesn't matter who wrote the article. Keeping the article would seem to be a memorial for a dead IDF soldier, because neither his life nor his death were notable. Just because his death was mentioned by 109 newspapers on one day, does not make his death notable. Yonideworst (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The distinction between Hadar Goldin and Death of Hadar Goldin should address the WP:MEMORIAL concerns. This is not an article to remember him by, it's an article to address the cause and consequences of his death, which are important enough to make that death notable. It allows for description of at least three facts about the attack that led to his death about which which their are both multiple sources of information and relevant broader effects: When and where did the attack occur? (and therefore its role in breaking a much larger ceasefire) What was the Israeli military response to his death? (and its impact on Gazans, and the course of the 2014 Gaza conflict) What are the implications of the use of the Hannibal directive in this case to the visibility and level of political will to continue it? Now, these issues could be discussed on the other, separate pages, but they are somewhat overlapping and made clearer by being addressed in a single separate page. That is, detail might be too much for either other page, but perfectly relevant to the notable event of Goldin's death.--Carwil (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is against WP:ONEEVENT and WP:MEMORIAL, where are the sources that link his death to the war changing course? The notability is with the 'Hannibal' protocol's decision and not with the person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you do not want to see that he has been part of changing the wars course then what is the point in trying to prove the obvious too you. Clearly ONEEVENT and MEMORIAL is not an issue anymore. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See for yourself Hannibal Directive we do NOT have articles for every person that was killed with the Hannibal Directive being activated. I am asking for sources showing how his death direrctly changed the course of the war. This sentence right here: "Israel cited the kidnapping as one of several Hamas breaches of the ceasefire" in the article says that it was one of several reasons and not a direct result of anything. Its a war people die in a war, media covers it and things happen as a result. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As depressing as it sounds, I guess it comes down to whether you regard the difference between a ceasefire and seventy to one hundred thirty dead Palestinians (per the New York Times and Haaretz, respectively) to be a notable event (or as "changing the course of the war"). It seems comparable to the Battle of Shuja'iyya (2014) to the north. I would also feel comfortable with a similar article on the Goldin firefight, presumed abduction, and military response as a whole, but for now reliable sources seem to treat Goldin as notable, rather than what Haaretz called "Black Friday".--Carwil (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That's correct. The collapse of a specific cease fire (or your wording of "difference between a ceasefire and seventy to one hundred thirty dead Palestinians") is definitely not notable outside of the 2014 Gaza war article, as cease fires have come and gone in this conflict. Yonideworst (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We can not compare this story to the thousands of Palestinians dead in this conflict. We can not say, Hadar is not notable because that would be unfair to the thousands of Palestinians who has been killed. I mean that reasoning has no basis in any Wikipedia guideline. What you are all doing is saying that Hadar had no impact on this conflict while every source points to the complete opposit. His suspected kidnapping definitely impacted the conflict and the escalation of violence in the hours after as pointed out by several sources. Reasonings for deletion based on emotions are not as strong as reasonings based on Wikipedia guidelines like mine concerning this particular article for example. Sorry, just being honest guys. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep But as "Death of Hadar Goldin". This was a significant event in the conflict, and as such should be recorded in as much detail as possible. Having an article for the individual is unnecessary. O99o99 (talk) 17:08, 15 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.