Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

wp:NOTNEWS. Also the title is peculiar - Connecting unrelated people is wp:OR and wp:SYNTH. Their names are connected only because of one event, that is actually entirely credited to Ahmed Khatib, and NOT to Yoni Jesner so this article is akin to a WP:BLP1E even though they are dead. If considered individually, notability of both is not clearly established. Maashatra11 (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Unomi (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep While the article needs a bit of work, I don't find either WP:BLP1E or WP:NOTNEWS particularly compelling. Sources show that it spurred considerable debate within Israel, Palestine and indeed amongst those from elsewhere who paid note, the Heart of Jenin documentary released in 2008 supports the notion that it was an important and notable event. Unomi (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added the rescue tag as I believe that the concerns of the afd nom can be addressed via editing, through one or more of: refocusing, renaming, stronger notability claims in the article and presentation enhancements. Unomi (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added an incomplete list of potential sources at Talk:Yoni_Jesner_and_Ahmed_Khatib/Sources. Unomi (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Although it is a story that provides hope even while being sad, the sources do not connect the two that often so it turns this article into an essay. It seems a little OR to connect the two even though one of the sources about Khatib does have a single paragraph about Jesner. NOTNEWS might not be an issue for an article detailing the donation of Khatib's organs since it had such in-depth and nontrivial coverage but NOTNEWS does link to Notability (events) which calls for lasting effects (doesn't appear to be any change due to this) and mentions that the duration of coverage can be an indicator (was an obvious news spike even with PBS making a doc years later). The PBS doc might be a worthy of an article or it might point to Khatib's story being notable. Jesner's story might even be OK on its own or as a mention in another article. Both could also be mentioned in a variety of already existing articles in the topic area. As it is though, there are too many errors that need to be addressed which include a title change, a reassessment of the scope, MoS errors, editorializing, and so on.Cptnono (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I liked your comment. I couldn't describe it better... Maashatra11 (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sweet! I just gave reasoning for keep on another article that you opened a deletion discussion on that has some similar aspects. Both of them have potential with some changes (some minor some major) and if more sources are found but the connection made in this one is just too weak to keep currently.Cptnono (talk) 07:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  --Andrensath (talk &#124; contribs) 09:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  --Andrensath (talk &#124; contribs) 09:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Separate into two articles. One on each of these men.AMuseo (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seems like a WP:BLP1E to me. No evidence of notability aside from this. Also, borderline essay... GorillaWarfare  talk  15:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I count more than one event.  Two killings.  And multiple organ donations.  Coverage is also sufficient to move this out of BLP1E -- and media in different countries have in fact connected the two killings, and multiple organ donations.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As attested by the article's sourced, the event received far more then the daily newspaper coverage. Slightly awkward article names should be renamed, not brought to AFD.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Jamming both unrelated people into one article is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. However, even if you separate them out into two articles, both of those articles would be WP:BLP1E.  If you take away the single event of their organ donation, both of these individuals are entirely non-notable.    Snotty Wong   gossip 14:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not just snotty, it ignores completely the fact that the RSs "jam" both "unrelated" people into one article. Repeatedly.  Let's stick to the facts, and not ignore highly relevant ones, substituting our personal views as to whether the events are unrelated or not.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The only highly relevant fact that is being ignored is that these two people are completely non-notable except for a single event: the donation of their organs after their deaths. That is the definition of WP:BLP1E.  Please keep your comments civil.    Snotty Wong   gab 19:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so, Snotty. Two highly relevant facts that you are ignoring, still, are as follows.  1) The notable events of their deaths (2) and their organ donations (more than 2) = more than "1" event.  It is really rather on the basic level on the spectrum of complexity, when it comes to math.  In positive whole numbers, we can't count much lower than "more than one", and if you are going to continue to insist that a number greater than one is only one, I expect our problems run deeper.  2) Multiple RSs across the globe covered these multiple events, "jammed" together, as you characterize it.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The only highly relevant fact that is being ignored is that these two people are completely non-notable except for a single event: the donation of their organs after their deaths. That is the definition of WP:BLP1E.  Please keep your comments civil.    Snotty Wong   gab 19:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so, Snotty. Two highly relevant facts that you are ignoring, still, are as follows.  1) The notable events of their deaths (2) and their organ donations (more than 2) = more than "1" event.  It is really rather on the basic level on the spectrum of complexity, when it comes to math.  In positive whole numbers, we can't count much lower than "more than one", and if you are going to continue to insist that a number greater than one is only one, I expect our problems run deeper.  2) Multiple RSs across the globe covered these multiple events, "jammed" together, as you characterize it.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Exceptionally poignant peace guesture very much deserving coverage. Also per Epeefleche. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep They both get news coverage together, such as in the Guardian article . I agree with Unomi statements, there even a documentary about their effect on the people in those areas.   D r e a m Focus  23:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This article should be kept as it is. The two stories should be told, and told together, Many sources put them together, and Wikipedia should not be any different. Here's only one example: In 2007 the stories of two victims of, Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib, were told together, in the same broadcast of Heart and Soul, an award‐winning program by BBC World Service.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So all snottiness aside, we have 2 sources that connect the two.Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Guardian, ABC, the Church Times, Heart and Soul on BBC World Service ... how is that 2?--Epeefleche (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article merely mentions Yoni Jesner in passing - this is the nature of newspapers. That doesn't mean that the encyclopedia has to have a title combining the two. Maashatra11 (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If nom would spend more time observing his obligations under wp:before to do searches of his own before nominating articles like this for AfD, we would all perhaps be somewhat better served. I've now added The Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Gulf Times, and Dawn.  These newspapers, all around the world (yes, it is notable when coverage is in different countries), didn't just connect the two by accident.  And I doubt these eight are all she wrote.  We're not "jamming" the two together.  We're just mirroring what the RSs all over the world have done in discussing them together.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable sourced event that received rather wide coverage.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep or else put into Children and minors in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict as a top-level section. It's well sourced and highly notable. --Stfg (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Same as Stfg, but there is no place for merging in my opinion. It is written well and can stand suo jure. Broccoli (talk) 06:27, 6 August 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.