Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihad Shaar


 * 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.  Kurykh  00:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Jihad Shaar

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Another attempt to turn WP into a WP:NOT of someone non-notable. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable outside of the circumstances of death, and per nom on not a memorial. Pedro | Chat  08:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep at least two newspaper articles written so it pass Notability (people) as he has been "the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". // Liftarn
 * Comment But the sources just cover his death. Why was he notable other than dying ? Article asserts he was a "would be student" who "hadn't decided what he was studying" - just being killed, even in these distressing circumstances, is not on it's own a criteria for notability. Pedro | Chat  09:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see anything in the guidline requiring a specific reason for fame. WP:NOT doesn't apply since the requirement "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." is fullfilled. // Liftarn
 * Reply Please see WP:N. This guy was not notable when he was alive. Nothing in the sources indicates he will be notable in the future. Just because the subject has been covered in the news does not mean we need an encyclopedia article. I respect you are not personally involved but just because the article meets the criteria of coverage does not initself make the subject notable. To clarify the notability thing: I have reports of a gas main being dug up on my local road from two independent verifiable resources (e.g. the BBC and a local paper); neverthless the gas main and roadworks are not notable although they are verifiable. Pedro | Chat  10:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but my divinations skills is a bit low so I find it hard to tell if he will keep being notable of not. But considering the events it's likley the issue will consider to generate interest even in the future. The gas main is unlikley to do so. // Liftarn
 * Yep, I know but WP:CRYSTAL and per my above link. If the guy becomes notable at a later date the article can always be re-created. The point is that his notability at this time does not fit with the guidelines, IMHO. Pedro | Chat  11:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He currently is notable (no dubt about that). Nobody knows if he will remain notable or not. So it boils down to if you are a deletionist or an inclusionist. Anyway, I moved the article over to Wikinews so it is available there. This Rodney King incident mey remain notable or not. // Liftarn
 * Good choice on the move to wikinews. Pedro | Chat  12:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that on Wikinews it was deleted on sight. Sigh! // Liftarn


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial.   Zouavman   Le   Zouave   10:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am neither friend nor family and as per above WP:NOT does not apply. Post-mortem fame is not the same thing as a memorial. Take Patrick Stewart (soldier) as an example. // Liftarn


 * DeleteWhatever the circumstances may be, whose version is the truth, and even if the victim is Jewish or Palestinian, Jihad is just another pointless and NN death in the current Oslo war. The move to wikinews is sufficient. --Shuki 11:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't know But check out Aggie Moffatabove - she has two newspaper mentions and a website created by fans, but the guys above don't think that makes her notable.Anarchia 12:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and that article is also currently at AFD. Pedro | Chat  12:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Just as not everyone killed by suicide bombers deserves an article, neither do all people killed by the IDF. At most include a line about the event in one of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles. Number   5  7  14:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Duh! Category:Suicide bombing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... // Liftarn
 * Duh? Very WP:CIVIL. Anyway, what is your point? There are no victims of bombings in that category, just four suicide bombers. Number   5  7  08:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * An entire category of events that aren't current news. // Liftarn 10:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And? I didn't say delete the article because it isn't current news. I said delete because not every victim of the conflict is notable. Number   5  7  11:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Having a separate article about every detonated bomb seems to me like a bit of an overkill as well if we should use your logic. // Liftarn
 * There is a big difference between a suicide bombing or an IDF operation and a seemingly random knife attack. Number   5  7  11:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Clubs and rifle butts, not knifes. Compare it with articles like Rodney King and Reginald Oliver Denny that also only became known for things done to them. And for that matter the entire category Category:Crime victims. The guidlines does not support deletion based on Humus sapiens' claims. // Liftarn
 * Perhaps if this guy's death had started something like the 1992 LA Riots (I'm not American, but I've heard of Rodney King) he might be notable, but obviously it hasn't. Number   5  7  12:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just US centrism. OK, I've also heared about Rodney King, but what about Reginald Oliver Denny? How many have heared about Allen Benn or Helen Brach? // Liftarn
 * So nominate them for deletion too then. Benn in particular seems non-notable, though the Brach issue at least has some connection to a well-known company. Number   5  7  13:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PS I have prodded Allen Benn if it makes you feel any better. Number   5  7  13:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Carefull to avoid WP:POINT. // Liftarn


 * Delete What next, every mugging victim in South Philly? Avi 15:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If it would comply with Notability (people). // Liftarn
 * Just because somebody has been covered in the press does not automatically make them notable, Liftarn. If both the Daily News and the NYT lists the name of someone shot in the Bronx, they get their own article? The policies need to be applied WITH common sense; having an article for this person lacks common sense. -- Avi 13:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it of general interest? Then yes (but then I'm an inclusionist). However they are just local newspapers. Did the hypothetical shooting became international news? // Liftarn


 * Delete I just do not see any historic notability for this person who died during conflict Corpx 03:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Doesn't seem to be a memorial.  There are in-depth reliable source articles that are solely about the person and the way he died, so it appears to satisfy WP:N.  WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, as he is dead.  I don't see anything wrong with this article. JulesH 16:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But WP:NOT DOES apply. What is this person notable for? Including the fact that he is dead? There are many, many dead pepple whose obituaries appear in multiple newspapers. Do we start adding each and every one? ABsurd, in my opinion. -- Avi 17:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He is notable for being beaten to death when he was handcuffed and on the ground. Obituaries may be used as a source (note that the article in question does not use a obituary as source, but newspaper articles) and death notices aren't usable since they are esenssialy advertisments. // Liftarn


 * Delete per our notability guidelines, which this individual fails. We need multiple, non-trivial mentions. If such mentions accrue in the future due to any sort of building controversy, then the entry can be recreated.  Tewfik Talk 21:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: We have multiple (count them) non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. // Liftarn
 * Delete as non notable. Nothing here convinces me that there is lasting interest rather than being summed up in 'In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability'. Nuttah68 12:17, 20 August 2007 (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.