Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saeed Chmagh


 * 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. Since this is an AfD debate, we decide whether to delete or not. A consensus is not to delete. Whether to merge or not, this can be discussed on the talkpage. Tone 21:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Saeed Chmagh

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:NOT and WP:ONEVENT. While the event may be notable, there is no evidence that Chmagh is notable outside this, or that there is enough coverage of him as an individual to justify an article. Ironholds (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete – Did a cursory search for sources; could not find notability elsewhere. Per nom. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 02:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge is what I meant. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Important part of July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike &#91;&#91;Theclerkswell&#93;&#93; &#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User_talk:TheClerksWell&#124;TALK PAGE!&#93;&#93;&#39; (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Read WP:ONEEVENT. Ironholds (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As per July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike controversy Vipin Hari  ||  talk  03:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Read WP:ONEEVENT. Ironholds (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read People notable only for one event: "If an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles." Vipin Hari  ||  talk  17:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not such an event. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the moment. Significant international news media coverage ;  per WP:ONEVENT this content could be merged later on into the main July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike article if it fits better there.  Total deletion would seem to not be appropriate.  —Sladen (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion and merge are totally different things. Content can still be merged even if the article is deleted.--Crossmr (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The news media coverage is of the event, not of him. Ironholds (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - the news coverage extended beyond the event to end up giving background on the person. To get a sense of the man, read: Racepacket (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep- The end of his life is controversial.  IMO, that makes it notable.  Fighting for Justice (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Read WP:ONEEVENT, which highlights exactly why you're wrong.
 * Weak keep - In this case though, the individual and the event are extremely different - the event is much more about the American military involvement than about the individual.
 * Keep- At least for now. Significant media coverage is beginning to include the background of the journalists in the shooting, making this noteworthy and possibly allowing for expansion. --Chris Goodson (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - per CGoodson - the coverage of the person was significant beyond the way that he died. Allow for expansion. Racepacket (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - He was an Iraqi war journalist and he was murdered in an airstrike by US soldiers. This voids the opinion of WP:ONEEVENT. 92.24.157.127 (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ..how? Ironholds (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge - No disrespect, but this is little better than a stub and his information could be included alongside his cameraman. So many people are murdered by our military, we can't have separate articles for them all (sick joke). Magmagoblin2 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Important part of July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike --Yogi de (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain how he passes WP:ONEEVENT. Ironholds (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article should be kept, because of the circumstances under which he was killed. I do think though that the article should be expanded because it's currently too short in my opinion. --Jesant13 (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you try citing policy with your argument? Explain how this article's subject passes WP:ONEEVENT? We are not a source of news. Ironholds (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike per WP:ONEEVENT for now. That notability guideline states: "as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified". I don't think Chmagh has reached that point. Given some time maybe he will, but at this point it's too early to have a separate article about him.  Jujutacular  T · C 15:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Jujutacular. Though to be fair, we shouldn't discount keep votes above if they reflect If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. (from WP:ONEEVENT). I don't happen to believe that applies here, but I accept that others may differ. So should the closer. --John (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would favor keeping this article if more information could be found about his life, backed by reliable sources, and the article could be expanded to resemble more of a biography than a recap of his part in the airstrike. Obviously, his death (and should) still be a major part of the article, if not making up most of it. But if the article can be expanded with info about his early life, his pre-airstrike employment with Reuters, etc. etc., I'd favor keeping it. Otherwise, I wouldn't be opposed to a merge/redirect. (I'll try to look for sources myself in the next couple days...) —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  19:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - I think it's been sufficiently expanded to be focused more as a biography now, not a stub recounting their role in the airstrike. It could still use some expansion, but now I feel it's not in violation of WP:ONEEVENT because it is focused on both Chmagh's career and the airstrike. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  14:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike per WP:ONEEVENT. Not notable outside of being an unfortunate victim of "wrong place, wrong time." when a U.S. helicopter fired at what were thought to be armed insurgents. No evidence they assassinated him because they wanted Saeed Chmagh, in particular, dead. His work did not apparently lead to his death, other than perhaps in having a camera with a long lens mistaken for a weapon, and standing around with men, who some of whom appeared to carry AK-47s. Edison (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Standard WP:ONEEVENT case; redirect per Jujutacular, Edison, and others. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike per WP:ONEEVENT— Chris! c / t 05:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia would be better served by an urge to improve than an urge to delete. If we can get a bit more information about his early life and career this will be a perfectly serviceable article. - 24.6.1.26 (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was me. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. - DevOhm Talk 08:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep An important part of quite an important event. Would rather it be expanded than deleted. Merge would be a comprimised if totally necessary. Cls14 (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Chris Goodson's explanation. Warrah (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage of subject (profiles like this) has sufficient depth now to warrant a separate article.  --Sodabottle (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This individual was clearly a noted and valued contributor toward a global news agency - his contribution toward scores if not hundreds of global or regional news stories can be assumed or proven by Reuters - it is, unlikely, therefore, that only this one event has begotten his entry. He is not simply a witness, nor a reporter, he is rather the entire fulcrum upon which the event stands. After all, the majority of individuals killed here do not have a wiki page. This would seem to undermine any reasons for WP:OneEvent guideline removal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodpaul (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- He was an Iraqi journalist killed while standing around armed insurgents without wearing a PRESS identifier. It's a prime example of how the war's critics don't care at all about the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war. -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge - While he may not be notable enough to warrent a unique article, he is a major and very significant part of the event. Therefor the information in the article would be appropriate to merge into the event article. Furthermore the event is a significant if (sadly) not uncommon occurrence. --Achris51 (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The event is notable enhough to fulfill the exception clauses is WP:ONEEVENT. BrickBreak (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Significant coverage of the individual in secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Delete - The event is only borderline notable (civilians often get killed by accident in warzones, its terrible but it happens). But this individual is only notable because he was killed in this event.  He was not notable as a journalist, and his tragic demise is the definition of WP:ONEVENT. Cathardic (talk) 16:07, 14 April 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.