Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nava Applebaum


 * 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 Mandsford 20:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Nava Applebaum

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The Wikipedia is not a memorial to non-notable victims of tragedies. Classic, textbook WP:BLP1E for a person who would not even be considered for an article apart from this event. Tarc (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2010


 * Keep. Combining WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL in one rationale for deletion is hilarious as the best oxymoron ever. But seriously, most of the article's sources are all from years after the incident, revealing the long term nature of the subject's notability.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So that's one WP:ITSNOTABLE to discard. Who's up next? Tarc (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't create straw man arguments. The claim to notability is that the subject has received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Any sort of claims of fleeting notability are debunked by simply checking the dates of the sources in the article, most of which are from years after the incident. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, Brewcrewer. The classic example is trying to delete Lee Harvey Oswald because he was notable for one incident. Kansan (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of strawmen, you two are building a fine one. Of course there are exceptions, as noted at the WP:BLP1E page itself, i.e. John Hinckley, Jr..  If you can explain why this event is similarly significant or historical...without resorting to the usdual Israeli-Palaestinie topic area rhetoric...I'm all ears, bro. Tarc (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E does not apply. She is not a living person.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional comment. The most updated version of the article has 16 sources, 12 of which were written at least two years after the incident.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a such thing as a memorial page, and this ain't it. Kansan (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for tendentious news summaries of one side's losses in the interminable Israeli-Palestinian civil war. My friend died in a car crash that was covered in the newspaper, does that mean I should write a Wikipedia article about him? Take your pick: NOT NEWS, ONE EVENT, NOT A MEMORIAL, POV-PUSH. Carrite (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Was your friend's car crash talked about for years to come in internationally known newspapers? Kansan (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This story and its influence have a proven persistence well beyond memorialization of an individual passingly in the news. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There are third party references covering the subject in the article. Please explain why this does not constitute notability. patsw (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ONEEVENT is not about quantity or quality of sources; it is whether or not this person would be otherwise notable outside one event. If you can show that she is (like her father, who was independently notable beyond being killed in a bombing, would easily pass an AfD), then let's see some evidence.  Calls of "it's reliably sourced!" do not actually address the nomination. Tarc (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "otherwise notable outside one event" is not the defining factor. If that were the case, the guideline would call for the deletion of clearly notable people like some of those mentioned above. John Hinckley, Jr. and Lee Harvey Oswald would not have been "otherwise notable outside one event". However, their notability is unquestioned due to their coverage long after the event. Similarly, the coverage about Nava Applebaum has continued for years after the event, not just around the time of the incident. The vast majority of the sources utilized in the article are dated at least two years after the event, some even from 2010. Of course this is not to say that Nava Applebaum is as notable as the murderer of presidents. The analogy is being used to point out that the level of coverage after the event is what distinguishes between someone getting their 15 minutes of fame for breaking the pumpkin eating contest and someone whose poignant story clearly still reverberates in the news media.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article provides dozens of references from a wide range of reliable and verifiable sources from around the globe and over an extended period of time showing that the subject of the article is notable. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator's rationale is a textbook misapplication of WP:BLP1E. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Indifferent I am getting sick of seeing editors write up articles about individual victims of this conflict. Between Asel Asleh and Applebaum I honestly can't tell the difference. IMO, a tit-for-tat struggle has evolved among editors trying to one-up each other over who can create the biggest collection of Israeli or Palestinian victims of war. Personally, I find the AFD dubious and reactionary considering the article was created a mere day ago. So I support Keep if the other articles are to remain. Only fair I guess. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly passes WP:BASIC by virtue of the numerous reliable, intellectually independent sources cited in the article. Also passes WP:VICTIM (though this is less clear-cut) by virtue of the numerous charities and such in her name. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * merge to the article on her father or the incident. She herself is notable only as one of several victims who happened to have a certain associated  pathos from personal circumstances. This is tabloid coverage, not encyclopedic.  The lead quote, calling her a tragic heroine, is diagnostic of tabloid writing.    DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Those exact words don't appear in the lead quote; "epic tragedy", which does, is not in WP's own voice. Time has shown that she and her story are especially notable, and remembered, not "only as one of several victims" (emphasis added). Hertz1888 (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, death and article about a non notable person. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Kepp—as sources make clear, this person is notable for her legacy, not necessarily any actions during life or the event itself. In fact, I believe that the last section should be renamed to "Legacy". —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * it used to be "Legacy", but I changed it because I felt it may be a bit too melodramatic sounding. Of course I'm open to changing it back if the change is supported by another reasonable editor such as yourself.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, Notable event with lasting impact drawn from a multiplicity of reliable sources.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge in to Café Hillel bombing. (This reminds me of another non-notable victim of the conflict, Furkan Doğan) Chesdovi (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...whose article was kept despite never proving long term notability, unlike this subject. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Much like Asel Asleh, the death receives continued international coverage from reliable sources. Should be kept if the title is changed .Cptnono (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems to me in some ways similar to Mohammed al-Dura, who was not notable for his actions as a child, but for his 'legacy'.  Snakeswithfeet (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Snakeswithfeet, except Mohammed al-Dura's story was probably a hoax, and this is this article is about real story. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 19 October 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.