Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Douglas (cameraman) (2nd 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   no consensus. Sorry to do this again, but there clearly isn't any. Would writing an article on the incident and merging the people into it be an idea, perhaps? Black Kite (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Paul Douglas (cameraman)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

First AfD ended in No Consensus, but that was within days of the incident when there was still a lot of media coverage, thus influencing some editors to vote Keep. Now, almost seven years later, it is pretty clear this individual fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Mr. Douglas was just some random cameraman who was not known at all until his tragic death as he did not win any awards or recognitions for his work nor did anything that greatly changed the world of journalism or film. To say that he is notable just because of the way he died violates WP:NOTINHERITED. Foreigners are killed, captured, or injured in hostile nations every day. The attack itself fails WP:EVENT being that media coverage died down rather quickly and does not have any lasting effects on society. I am also nominating James Brolan because he was some random technician who fails WP:BIO and only got his notability from dying in the same attack:
 * The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The nominator would have to make a completely separate nomintion for James Brolan. The current link from the nomination of Brolan now takes me to this page. These are two separate issues being treated as one. Crtew (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Brolan article does not meet the standards set out by WP:BUNDLE.Crtew (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain how does this not meet WP:BUNDLE? The first AfD for Paul Douglas also included James Brolan and closed without problem. It is valid to nominate them together because both Douglas and Brolan are not notable other than being killed in the same attack that injured Kimberly Dozier. If I created separate AfDs for these men, they would literally have the same rationale as each other as nomination. One was a cameraman, the other a technician, but this has no impact on their notability (or lack of it), despite the improvements you made. The sad truth is that if these two men were alive today, we would not have articles on them. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, this is not the first nomination. I'm not sure why nobody caught that the first time. Secondly, Brolan is a part of an award winning news team for its coverage in Pakistan.Crtew (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thirdly, why are you assuming the two are non notable? That's your opinion, but it's one that I do not share.Crtew (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fourth, I'm always skeptical of second time nominations, and it appears that this is rightly so, as none of the lessons from the first process were learned.Crtew (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Finally, the phrasing of this nomination is so unfair. The nomination assumes so much, is leading rather than based on evidence, and does not even consider the comments that led to the failure of the first attempt.Crtew (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You absolutely CAN NOT bundle two articles into the same AfD. That is confusing for purposes of discussion and runs counter to AfD guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved this from the "Places and Transportation" category to "Biography." --Oakshade (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Besides the very high amount of in-depth coverage soon after his death including some extremely in-depth stories, years later, in 2007 and 2011 are examples I've found after a quick search, still received significant coverage.  WP:NOTINHERITED is for individuals who have not received in-depth coverage but simply related to those who have.  WP:NOTABILITY doesn't care why someone is notable, but if someone is notable.  --Oakshade (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is a WP:NOTMEMORIAL situation, with a dash of WP:NOTNEWS tossed in. My condolences to his friends and family for their loss. Carrite (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: This vote is flawed because the error in the nomination process and we have no idea if the voter means Brolan or Douglas.Crtew (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Crtew (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Crtew (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Crtew (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - One thing you'll notice about the sources in this article is that they are extensive, as in WP:SIGCOV, and they have appeared over a long period of time. The latter would indicate that this article is in no way some kind of "memorial" -- a comment that appears in the first nomination and makes another appearance here. And it is also not "news" masquerading as a Wikipedia article -- a comment which would need some explanation as many of the events in Wikipedia appeared at one time in the news. I'm sure some people will think this is a WP:ONEEVENT, but if that's so, then why do we see multiple tributes and from more than one network (in this case also ITV)? What you have here is a respected journalist with over 17 years of experience at ITV and CBS and also a veteran of war coverage, who was murdered. The nomination actually belittles his reputation by referring to him as "some random cameraman". What this nomination side steps, fails to raise and seems to discount is that the killing of a journalist in a war zone is a violation of Geneva Conventions -- international human rights -- and was deemed by the UK coroner to be an "unlawful" killing. Moreover, Iraq is one of the least covered zones in Wikipedia in proportion to the numbers, especially native Iraqi handlers and journalists, of journalists who have been killed in wartime.Crtew (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 06:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Crtew's points. A read though the article and sources verifies that the subject was notable. And this keep applies to both articles, which should not have been bundled into one AfD. --SouthernNights (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete Every source in the article was published after the death of Paul Douglas. He would not have been considered notable for his career before his death, though it was an admirable career. He was, after all, a cameraman, though indisputably a brave one. He has received attention in reliable sources solely because of the circumstances of his death in wartime.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete both per Cullen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.231.58 (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Most of the content seems to be on his death and controversy in its aftermath. That so much has been said about it makes it notable.  If we can find material on what he did in his lifetime we could keep it with its presnet title; if not rename to Death of Paul Douglas.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2013 (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.