Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asel Asleh

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. The discussion of renaming/moving can continue on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asel Asleh

edit
AfDs for this article:
Asel Asleh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person's only claim to notability is that he died - which is not enough per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Previously proposed for deletion, but the proposal removed by the article's creator. Tie Oh Cruise (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. He is only notable for one event- his death- and I do not think that was significantly covered enough to meet WP:BIO. --Slon02 (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (with provisions) I don't see this being against WP:ONEVENT. That notability guideline "discourage Wikipedia from having separate articles on people playing minor roles in major events or major roles in minor events." His death was a major enough event if it is true that "The day after his death, 30,000 people followed Asel's body to the cemetery where it was buried"[1] (I'm skeptical of anythign from Salon personally). His death had spikes in coverage at the time, a couple years later after the inquiry, and passing mentions since then in the search for sources link in Google News shown above. That shows ongoing coverage from reliable sources of a national and international scope. That means that NOTNEWS is certainly questionable as reason for deletion. It appears that his death meets the General Notability Guidelines. Al that being said, the article should be retitled ("Death of Asel Asleh") since he was not notable but his death was. The scope of this article also needs to be his death and the background information should not over weight that (although sources do include his background to a decent extent it looks like) The article also needs sources to verify what ti is saying and a quick check for POV just to be on the safe side. If these things are not done then there may be enough concern to delete it per WP:NOTESSAY (part of WP:NOT which is mentioned as reasoning at WP:DEL).Cptnono (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article about a subject who did not meet the general notability guideline before his death. Along with the reaoning above, the cherry picking of what to say and not to say made this too much of a POV issue. Not a memorial, soapbox, or place for primary research. Cptnono (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cherry-picking? It is called using the information in the multiple, independent and international sources. As you noted before at least his death passed GNG. A strange change of heart given that there are only MORE sources directly covering his life and death.--TM 15:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the request for clarification below:
  • He was not notable before his death. His death was the driving factor in the significant coverage. So without a rename, this article fails ONEEVENT. The information could be in an article based on his death. I did not feel comfortable with my "keep" !vote without this. An Alternative to a bio on him would be merging it into October 2000 events.
  • POV. As explained, POV can be reason for deletion if it hits the points listed at WP:NOT which is a point at WP:DEL. Editors often fail to disregard this. In this article, the information provided is less neutral then some of the write ups available in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That gives it a memorial feel. For example, one RS detailed the circumstances of the police training. It also does not detail the question of if he was protesting or just observing (something that has troubled his friends since the protesting involved violence from those protesting).
The recent push to add sources since I made my !vote (it was pretty poor) has improved the article. It is much less of an essay now. However, the lack of editors willing to change the name (which would barely change the scope) is too much of a problem. The POV is fixable but with those two issues being current issues I do not feel confident that this article is in accordance with Wikipedia standards while it meets the criteria for deletion. I would be happy to assist if an editor wants to throw this in the incubator, reintroduce it with an overhaul and name change, or merge it into another article. And you said that you would like to know what to argue against. Don't bother arguing. If you wouldn't have dug your heals in and been willing to make changes I would not have changed my !vote. It shouldn't be about arguing but about collaboration. I provided the things that needed to be done for me to !vote "keep" and you refused so unless you are willing to make changes we are at an impasse.Cptnono (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to flip-flop (again) With TM agreeing that a name change is possibility. The other problems mentioned are still there but it should be workable if editors put in the effort.Cptnono (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More sources: Maine 'Seeds of Peace' Youth Shot To Death By Israeli Soldiers, Portland Press Herald via Common Dreams, Seeds of Peace Alumni Face Challenges To Beliefs in Coexistence from America.gov, another, separate source from Salon, Seeds of Peace: Otisfield, Maine, Aaron David Miller, Asel Asleh, Shurrab Family, John Wallach, the Olive Branch, Nicolla Hewitt, SUSPECT from Haaretz, 2006. Oppose renaming. Asel Asleh was notable in and of himself as a peace activist.--TM 01:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is that amazon page RS? Also, you don't need the likes of www.commondreams.org when you have reputable press covering the subject. You should start taking sources to the talk page so that they can be included before this is deleted.
  • I will be opening up a move discussion if this article survives deletion. If it continues to assert more notability of the person instead of notability of the event I will be the one nominating this for deletion the second time. See WP:NOTMEMORIALCptnono (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are very confusing. Can you explain that? There are more than a dozen articles above which indicate in-depth, reliable secondary sources most which cover his personality etc., not just his death. The amazon page is just an example, I wouldn't include it on the page itself. This is an open and shut case of clear cut notability.--TM 05:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted? AfD's are not deleted. Memorial? The article is in no way a memorial.--TM 05:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I was not clear:
  • The coverage of the guy is a result of his death and not him. The america.gov link says it perfectly. He was promising and had potential but it is all hindsight. Going to a summer camp does not make someone a political figure.
  • If you would not have included the amazon page on the article itself you should not have included it here. Find sources before his death showing notability if you want to argue that he (not his death) is notable.
  • Of course AfDs are not deleted. If the article is kept (which is what I have !voted for) then it needs to be fixed. If not, it should be deleted. Is that clear enough? There is the opportunity to have a decent article.
  • Not memorial. It isn't about him and it isn't about how good of a kid he might have been. It should be about his death since that is what meets the GNG and maybe even the EVENT guidelines.
Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is more significant than his death. It covers his life in great detail, especially for someone killed at 17 and someone who didn't live in a Anglophone country. Clearly, if you read WP:MEMORIAL closely, you can see that no one, including myself, is memorializing him. "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." There are multiple, detailed accounts of his life, actions, philosophy, death and the subsequent reactions to his death. I don't know how anyone can argue that it doesn't pass GNG. Also, on the topic of Common Dreams, it is 1) a reliable source but more importantly 2) it simply republished a story in the Portland Press Herald. Clearly, his life and death had widespread implications and was covered over a long period in multiple, international news sources, so WP:NOTNEWS is irrelevant.--TM 07:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well we are leaving the scope of this AfD. So if you can find sources from BEFORE his death, please make sure to bring them up on the talk page since they will be pertinent to any future move or deletion based discussions.Cptnono (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More coverage about Asleh from before his death Inheriting the Holy Land: An American's Search for Hope in the Middle East comments extensively on his personality and actions. I've also added his self-definition and views from a 1999 New York Times article. He is also mentioned in Bill Clinton's Giving: how each of us can change the world and Leap of Faith by Queen Noor, though neither of these mentions is in-depth. Asleh's thoughts and beliefs are also cited in "Embattled Identities: Palestinian Soldiers in the Israeli Military" by Rhoda Kanaaneh in her 2003 journal article [3].--TM 15:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing this delete vote with your keep votes here or here or at any number of other articles is quite entertaining for those of us who enjoy the comedy of the absurd. nableezy - 01:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who enjoys the comedy of the absurd I can't wait to see your !vote here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
POV pushing? Asleh's life and death has been commented on by dozens of scholars, politicians, journalists and activists in mainstream international press. I wonder if Bill Clinton or Queen Noor are reliable sources or if any article about Jews killing Arabs would be acceptable to some editors these days.--TM 05:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There have been at least three comments discussing editors in a way that is inflammatory and strays too far from the article. Stop it. These comments can lead to discretionary sanctions based on the topic area being so turbulent. Everyone should know this by now.Cptnono (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cptnono, can you restate your reasons for deletion? They were very unclear and with other bandwagoning on them, I'd like to at least know what to argue against.--TM 16:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TM, notability is quite established Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TM and Mwinog2777. Notability has been thoroughly established via the sources presented here which show Asel Asleh was notable before his death. Delete votes made claiming WP:ONEVENT or WP:NOTMEMORIAL fail to take into account the sources available/presented and should be discounted. Tiamuttalk 18:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • note after reading the comments of other editors, I went back to the sources. Certainly there was not notability before this young man's unfortunate death. The circumstances of his death are murky. One wishes that the family, for example, had permitted the disinterment of the bullet. However, I can see that an argument can be made that his death has been widely discusssed in the years following his death. and am, therefore altering my vote .AMuseo (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The most applicable policy is WP:VICTIM, though it's not known whether his killing was a crime. Subject fails criterion #1 of this policy because he is clearly not notable for anything other than his death (TM's notion that he was independently notable as a peace activist is ludicrous). Also fails criterion #2 because the October 2000 events, while clearly notable, do not constitute a "historic event". Finally, fails WP:BASIC becuase the only reliable sources covering him as anything more than a detail in the events are precisely those sources that are not intellectually independent. Any useful material can and should be added to October 2000 events#2 October, but the article in its current version is too fundamentally afoul of WP:NPOV for a merge. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you describe how the New York Times, Salon.com, Haaretz, Slate, the Washington Post, Jerusalem Post, a speech by a British MP, and the dozen or so other sources listed above are not intellectually independent? I would accept a move to Death of Asel Asleh as you are correct, he wasn't notable enough prior to his death; however, it is important to include the substantial information available on him personally in that article. Lastly, the October 2000 events are still being protested and commemorated ten years after they happened. How are they not historic events? In my mind, Asleh is akin to Rachel Corrie, Mohammed Al-Durrah, Hector Pieterson or any number of similar people who were not notable before they were killed, but their killing served as a symbol which others rallied around.--TM 00:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
News articles in mainstream media outlets like the New York Times are intellectually independent, but in these sources, he is not treated as anything more than a detail in the 2000 October events. Being commemorated by some partisan groups does not make an event a "historic event". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article provides appropriate sources to support the claim of notability. Coverage has been continuing regarding the article's subject. Alansohn (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThat the deletion of this article is being discussed at the current time (October 2010) is clearly due to the proximity of the 10th anniversary of the subject's death. That in itself is evidence that the subject of the article (if not the young man himself, then his death) is notable. If not kept in it's current form, the article should at least be kept as an article about the death of Asel Asleh. There are certainly enough sources to satisfy the requirement of notability of the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggedben (talk • contribs) 07:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asel_Asleh&oldid=1254997408"