Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sons of Eilaboun


 * 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The Sons of Eilaboun

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable film. No significant coverage in independent 3rd party sources. Fails WP:MOVIE (as the only non-blog external link which goes into detail about it is a press release and I don't believe this counts as a "major" award) and has only 64 ghits in English, 84 ghits in Arabic. Was originally created by the director himself (, who also created an article on himself and added himself to the list of notable people on Arab citizens of Israel) before being speedied, then re-created by a possible sockpuppet (see here). In response to the claims that I only want the article deleted because I'm Jewish and politically biased, (a) I'm not Jewish, and (b) I'm usually accused of being pro-Palestinian. Make of that what you will. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  12:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The numbers of ghits provided by Number 57 are from Google.co.uk, which reflects only the UK part of the Internet. The real ghits from Google.com are: Hisham Zreiq (530 ghits) or Hisham Zrake (1700 ghits) as of today. Other arguments of Number 57 are mostly based on his personal opinions and believes and cannot be considered as objective. Moreover, the case really smells very political. Dear administrators, please take your time and efforts to analyze this case closely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordka (talk • contribs) 14:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the figures are pretty much the same for Google.com - 74 for Zrake and 84 for Zreiq. The difference is that you need to scroll through to the last page to see how many real hits there are. Even so, most of them are from either Wikpedia-sourced sites, or social networking/self-published ones. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  14:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your calculation of ghits is not correct. The number of results displayed on the very first page of Google search is the number of unique web pages, which mention the searched term. You do not need to go through all pages to reveal the "real" number of ghits. Google's optimization algorithm uses multiple criteria and may collapse the results of the output as you go deeper into the search results. This is an optimization trick and does not mean that the other results are "not real". You can still see them if you click the "repeat the search with the omitted results included" link, which turns off this filter. Mordka (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The expanded list is merely duplicate hits on the same websites. Anyway, as I said, most of the hits are from Wikipedia-linked sites or social networking. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  17:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:FILM; no notable actors, no notable awards, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are notable actors. Ilan Pappé features in the first half of the film. The second half of the film consists of interviews of survivors of this military action. Of course survivors are not notable in the Hollywoods view. Then again, there are many presentations of the documentary all over the world going on now. All these are reflected (in English, Arabic, Hebrew) in press. The movie won an award, right it is not Oscar. Mordka (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable press sources that I see, and the award doesn't have a Wikipedia page either. I can find very little info on the award. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a documentary of people who have suffered a war crime. Many documentaries focus on unknown people to tell some kind of story or illustrate the human experience. The fact that the victims being interviewed are not "notable actors" is completely irrelevant, what is relevant is that they are victims and witnesses to terrible and historic events. Silence is complicity. Peteskitoo (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - completely non-notable - NN director/producer, no IMDB entry, no notable publications mentioning the film. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:FILM.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 00:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep to get an IMDB entry takes months, and the film was newly released, I am sure it will come soon. And about publications, how about the most important newspaper in Egypt AL-AHRAM established in 1875: The article "Because it is our right" And Aljazeera see Translation to English Ilan Pappe is a very important Israeli historian, and he is featured in the film. If you have no entry for the Award that does not mean it is not important, it means you should add it, I will not because you guys probably will deleted, because it is a Palestinian award. If you take a look at the award link http://www.badil.org/Publications/Press/2008/press457-08.htm you will see that: “The festival will be covered by various media outlets, and will be broadcast live on several satelite stations. Several notable cultural and political figures, as well as representatives of Badil and the selection comittees will present the winners with their prizes.” watched it personally on Aljazeera live. I wonder why the users trying to delete the film are all connected to Israel some how! I think the film is being vandalized by pro Israelis for the fact it is Palestinian  "Hishamzr (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)"
 * Having an IMDB entry will not help it pass WP:MOVIE. As noteed above, Hishamzr is the article's original creator and the director of the film in question and therefore has a little WP:Conflict of interest (and has just been discovered doing a bit of socking after being caught out promoting himself). пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  08:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The film got a first prize from Badil (which itself is too well-known to ignore) Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)  PS: to the editors who make personal attacks on  пﮟოьεԻ : please stop at once! Though I disagree with him on this  occasion I do not doubt his good intentions, and I think I can say  пﮟოьεԻ  is considered a fair-minded admin in this mine-field of a topic called Palestine/Israel-issues. As they say in football: go for the ball, not the man!
 * Keep Don't forget that it's a documentary, based on the real and confirmed facts. A well known historian features it, as well as survivors of the historical events. The film is essential for the history of the place where the events took place. The film is covered in international press and features in multiple international festivals. It won an award. Mordka (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but does it pass WP:MOVIE? I don't believe it does. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  14:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - It doesn't take months to get IMDB entries - they list based on pre-production rumors. This seems too much like a self-promotional vehicle - general notability states that there must be significant coverage.  The first hit for Zreiq is WP (not good), third hit in Zreiq's Amazon profile (even worse), and the fourth is Zreiq's Facebook!  So no one has heard of him.  however, let's see what his film does -  WP:FILM says there should be reviews.  There are not.  There should be non-trivial articles, screenings, etc., five years after, and there's no indication when the film was made, so none of these guidelines are fulfillable. There's also no notable awards or preservation noted.  It was likely first screened only six or so weeks ago.  It may become notable, but there's simply nothing available to show that at this moment. MSJapan (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep what User talk:MSJapan is not correct, you should look for Hisham Zrake (and Zreiq), the claim that no 3d party press coverage is not correct, the film is covered Al-Ahram, Aljazeer and arabic newspappers. and the artist is covered in Arabic anf German press NordbayrischerKurier, NordbayerischeNachrichten, FränkischeSchweiz and kultura Extra. and this is delfpromoting artciles in very respected newspapers. For a new entry in IMDB takes 6 weeks, check there website, it is his first film so it will take at least 6 weeks, and he is a well established artist as a visual artist, and won a very important Award (Not to ignore Badil a very respected and important organization), the film was released in Sept. 2007 (not few weeks ago) and in such short time to get an award for a first film effort is alone notable enough. As an Arab I know that Hisham is a very poular arab name, and Family name Zreiq (also speled Zreik, zrake, Zriek) is a common family name in the arab world, and many notable people cary this family name Constantine Zreik ( diplomat), RafatZreik (a very good photographer), NesrinZreik (pop singer) and Elia Zureik ( a thinker and photographer), Hisham Abbas (pop singer), Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik (caliph = King). so if he edits such pages will you clam that hishamzr is Hisham Abbas or Hisham bn Abd al-Malik. this does not make since.
 * I would check the motives of User:Number 57 ( a fan of Israel and speaks hebrew), User:MSJapan ( speakes Yiddish), User:Ynhockey an Israeli, this users ignore all the arguments, and just want to delete the article. The Palestinian history and fingers are always targeted, and this is bad for Wikipedia. Arab48 (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that this is the only edit that has ever made. Off-wiki canvassing perhaps?  пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  14:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Excuse me Number57 this is irrelevant, what matters are facts about the film and not the users. FriedenMann (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The film was recently advertised in a full page ad in The Oregonian newspaper and was seen by over 200 people at a recent event in Portland, Oregon, May 31st, 2008. It was well received. It deals with real people wanting to tell their dramatic story about a traumatic historical event. The film is  timely and newsworthy and covers the history of events, the results of which still haunts the Middle East today.  The deleters seem to require special circumstances for information to be available to people, using as their focus arbitrary standards of "popularity" and "relevence" that are guaranteed to help suppress the voices of the powerless and the oppressed. Isn't it enough that real people have real stories to tell about important historical events, that these people are at the end of their lives and that it is a story worth telling and worth hearing? I definitely think so.  In addition, the notable, ground-breaking Israeli historian Ilan Pappe has an important role in narrating this film and he is worth hearing by himself. User:Peteskitoo  —Preceding comment was added at 15:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that has made no contributions to Wikipedia for over 2 years before this comment.  пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  10:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Excuse me Number57 this is irrelevant, what matters are facts about the film and not the users. FriedenMann (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The film makers should be given the time to ensure the film passes WP:MOVIE criteria. Films take a long time to get rolling - I was in a film that has been on Wikipedia since almost the day after principal photography ended, some 18 months before the film was finished. That film was never considered for deletion, probably because it included on camera and voice over work by noted celebrities. Documentaries are extremely important in today's corporate media culture, and Wikipedia is one of the few sources of information that are not driven by special interests. That said, the synopsis should be more journalistic and neutral.
 * I don't understand. The film has been released for more than six months, and it still doesn't meet the criteria. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  18:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that it has been released for 6 months isn't really relevant. Documentaries take, sometimes, years to rise to the consciousness of the masses. Again, I think the synopsis must be revised to reflect a more journalistic framework, however, I find the documentary's content timely and an important contribution to the discussion surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The fact that we're having this conversation, in my view, points up the intensity of interest in films such as The Sons of Eilaboun.
 * So if it hasn't "risen to the conciousness of the masses" it doesn't pass WP:MOVIE; it's not Wikipedia's job to publicise documentaries, and to claim that it might one day be notable is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. The fact that we are having this debate shows nothing except the fact that one person objected to its proposed deletion. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  10:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of significant subjects are not known to the masses, but are included on Wikipedia, including many obscure films. I think The Sons of Eilaboun demonstrates relevance and highlights events that should be discussed. If you are uncomfortable with the description of the events documented in the film, why not work on neutralizing the synopsis yourself, rather than proposing the deletion of the entire subject?

http://www.badil.org/awda-award/award5.html http://www.badil.org/Publications/Press/2008/press465-08.htm http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/99FDA844-B3BE-4AE9-894D-4FFDB9CF5EE6.htm JFCK (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep According to WP:MOVIE criteria under the title “Other evidence of notability” paragraph number 3 says “The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited.” That means the film meet the criteria Mr. Number57, many links in Arabic take about the film showing in Arab cities and villages in Israel (e.g. [see second paragraph in  Aljazeera.net article] ), and Badil the Palestinian organization that gave the film the Award has committed that “the winning documentaries will be broadcast on Arab satellite channels”. And will distribute the film. See Arabic and English sources bellow.
 * The film also meets the following principles of WP:MOVIE: General principles 3 & 4
 * 3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of film making.
 * 4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
 * The Award from Badil, and Palestinian national archive and Badil Archive. (see links bellow)
 * Badil links:
 * Links Articles about the film shows in Palestinian villages and towns (Arabic):
 * has no contributions outside this debate. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  21:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Excuse me Number57 this is irrelevant, what matters are facts about the film and not the users. FriedenMann (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Al-Ahram is sufficient sourcing for notability of a film. Rejecting such sources is outright cultural bias. DGG (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This note is for Number57: your small notes about other users is really a bad style and shows you have no case but vandalism. Read the next Note.
 * Note From Wikipedia about admins like Number57:
 * Criticism of Wikipedia - Administrator actions: "In an article on Wikipedia conflicts, The Guardian noted criticism that administrators of the site, who have "special powers to lock down vulnerable articles from further editing, and temporarily block problem users from making changes to the site",[107] have occasionally abused those powers to suppress legitimate editors. The article discussed "a backlash among some editors, who argue that blocking users compromises the supposedly open nature of the project, and the imbalance of power between users and administrators may even be a reason some users choose to vandalise in the first place." JFCK (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep  First point, you have no prov that hishamzr is Hisham Zreiq, because Hisham is a popular Arabic name, and many Arabs are called Hisham, and I don't believe hishamzr is Hisham Zreiq. and Zreiq family name is an old arbic family name goes back 2000 years, it is writen differently in Latin letters, and there was a Syrian thinker and diplomat with the same family name (Constantine Zreik), and a Palestinian professor and thinker living in the USA (Elia Zureik), Rafat Zreik a photographer,  Nesrin Zreik an Arab pop woman singer, even there is another Hisham zreiq spilled Hesham Zreik from Syria, and probably many Hisham zreiq, or zureik or zreik or zriek. this is not an argument Hisham zreiq in the arab world is like Bill Clark in the english speaking world.
 * Second point Badil and there award are respectful, very important and notable award, this is more than enough to keep the article.
 * Third point many Arabic press wrote about the film and artist (e.g. Al-Ahram and Aljazeer), there are german press that wrote about the artist Hisham zreiq, (e.g. Nordbayrischer Kurier on 17-01-2006 and 26-07-2004, Nordbayerische Nachrichten on 21.01.2006, Fränkische Schweiz on 24-07-2004, kultura Extra on Oct. 2004) some of the articles can be found in the following links:
 * http://www.hollfeld.de/zeitung/2004/jul04.htm
 * http://www.kunst-kultur-hollfeld.de/presseberichte.php?i=1
 * http://www.kunst-kultur-hollfeld.de/print.php?presse=true&id=1
 * http://www.kultura-extra.de/compuart/portrait/hisham_zrake_a.html
 * Fourth point according to IMDB website, for a new entry it takes 6 weeks and some times more.
 * Fifth point and first screening according to Arabic press was on Sept. 2007 and not few week ago.
 * Sixth point Hisham Zreiq (Zrake) is a very important Palestenian artist, just take a look at his page, He is not famous as Picasso, but still he is a recognized artist that exhibited his work in many countries, and received a German award in 2004 for his art.
 * Last point it seams what people are writing is only attacks at hishamzr, and not the film, so it seams to it is a targeted attack, it could be that the claim that the reason for the attacks is the origin of the film and the fact it is Palestinian. I use Wiki pedia for long time, and many articles about films and other stuff are less important than this film keep to exist with no problem, it seams to be people are trying to find excuses to delete it, and ignore all arguments. what you are doing will harm the credibility of Wikipedia.  87.175.1.42 (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * has no contributions outside this debate. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  08:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Excuse me Number57 this is irrelevant, what matters are facts about the film and not the users. FriedenMann (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The film also meets the following principles of WP:MOVIE:
 * General principles
 * The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of film making.
 * It was awarded the Badil Al-Awda award, a very important and respectable organization and Award.
 * The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
 * The film was preserved in the Palestinian national archive and Badil Archive after receiving the Al-Awda Award. and if I am not mistaken it was preserved in the Aljazera archive after receiving the Al-Awda Award, and according to Badil website was shown in many Arab TV stations, that means a copy will be preserved in there archive.

Wikipedia will not publicize the documentary; it just gives information about it as it gives information about other Israeli films and documentaries that no one heard about or received any awards. Anyway TV stations will not search for films in Wikipedia, neither people interested in the films. Their source will be imdb or all movies. So you have no excuses now пﮟოьεԻ 57.

With respect M.jish (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * has no contributions outside this debate. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  08:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Excuse me Number57 this is irrelevant, what matters are facts about the film and not the users. FriedenMann (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC) ++
 * It does matter because there has quite clearly been an off-wiki canvassing campaign to get this article kept. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  12:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note User: Number 57Please look at the facts, I will do a research my self, and judge the film not the users. But to tell you the truth it looks that the film meets the WP:MOVIE criterias. I am my self a new user, but I use Wikipedia for the last year to look for information. FriedenMann (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There are some posts on this page which I highly disapprove of. Firstly: please stop all personal attacks -nobody gives more "weight" to their argument by attacking another person; it is quite the opposite, in fact. Secondly: All those sock-puppets and/or meat-puppet that have suddenly appeared her to vote: Pleas stop it. If you have never edited on Wikipedia before, then coming here just to vote carry absolute NO weight whatsoever.  User:Number 57 is quite right in noting down for such "votes" that they have no other contributions. IMO they should be striked out/removed.  I myself voted "keep" (see above), and I stand by that. But I feel increasingly unwell about the company I have gotten into :-( Regards, Huldra (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I did a research about the film "The sons of Eilaboun", and checked the links given by some of the users, I disagree with some of there styles, but never the less what they write is true. The Artist got a German award for his art in 2004, and the film got an Award from Badil, a very respected Palestinian organization. The film and artist were covered by important press like Al-Ahram, Aljazeera, NordbayrischerKurier, NordbayerischeNachrichten, FränkischeSchweiz. And according to Badil the film is preserved in the Palestinian national archive and Badil Archive. The artist exhibited his works in important galleries and museums like the "Land of Israel Museum, Tel-Aviv, Israel" and "Kunst und Museum, Hollfeld, Germany". And I think the film meets WP:MOVIE criteria "General principles" 3 & 4 (see above other users) and meets “Other evidence of notability” 3. And I think his art is really wonderful and should not be ignored. I found from the research I did that the film was shown in many Palestinian towns and villages, as will in California, Oregon in the USA, Melbourne in  Australia, Montreal in Canada. And I think  in many other places that cannot be found in the internet. FriedenMann (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * has no contributions outside this debate. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  08:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So what!!! look at the facts the film meets WP:MOVIE criteria FriedenMann (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So what? As Huldra says, it's quite obvious this debate has been the victim of a meatpuppet campaign. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  08:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree with Huldra about the style, but the film article what matters in this debate. I heard about the film because it will be screen in my home town next month, I looked in Google, and found the article in wikipedia with the note to be deleted. I was convinced by the facts and I will go to see the screening. But I think the article should not be deleted anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FriedenMann (talk • contribs) 13:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per JFCK. Not crazy about the apparent sock-puppeteering going on, but appears to satisfy the letter and the spirit of WP:FILM.  Ford MF (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The film meets WP:MOVIE criteria for sure, and the film and artist Hisham Zreiq (Zrake) are notable. 217.194.34.103 (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seriously fails WP:MOVIE and the lack of an IMDB entry is a clear problem. More reason to delete is that the article was written by the movie's creator with a clear conflict of interest - if proven notable later, it can be re-created.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * if it "seriously fails" this criteria, then you should be able to provide specific reasons, seriously. The movie has been show around at various events and has been seen by hundreds of people and won awards. However, it is a new movie, so I don't see why this lack of an entry in the IMDB is a problem, especially because the subject matter is a documentary of people who have suffered tragedy, I would think their suffering should take precedence over bureaucratic scorekeeping. Peteskitoo (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone's "suffering" is not a reason to keep an article. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  22:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * it is certainly a better reason than that historical documentation be excised into the memory hole because of a missing IMDB entry Peteskitoo (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The incident is documented at Eilaboun massacre. This article adds nothing to that. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  22:20, 13 June 2008 (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.