Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saeed Hotari
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 merge to Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing. The subject does fulfill the notability criteria - but even so, there's not enough scope for a stand-alone article distinct from the event itself. Waggers (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Saeed Hotari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No citations. Non notable. Message from XENUu, t 21:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - There is an assertion of notability, and a quick check found [1], [2], the book "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" by Robert Pape, [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24892], [3] and dozen or so more. The article needs sources, but that is an area for article improvement, not deletion. Turlo Lomon (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Even the most cursory search pulls up masses of in depth coverage of the subject in major news papers. Suggest the nominator familiarises themselves with Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, I am not a big fan of that guideline and often do not accept it, but aide from a brief flare of interest he received in the month or two past the event there is no other coverage; the bombing took place in June 2001 and the articles covering this subject available on Google News are themselves from 2001, every single one. I might be willing to accept this article as notable if even a single news paper had mentioned him more than six months after the fact but, no, and while I know that in theory 'notability does not expire' what it looks like right now is that no one cares about him any more. Aside from an interesting story for the newspapers to tell I don't think anyone really was interested in him back then either. - Icewedge (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability does not expire means exactly that - even if " no one cares about him any more" he's still notable. If no-one was interested then, then why is there masses of indepth coverage of him? Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two types of coverage; the first type is the kind about people with real notability, such a celebrities; they are notable and people are interested in them so newspapers and magazines see fit to cover their actions, the second type that I do not think counts so much for notability are interesting stories, weird or quirky events that make a good read but no one really cares about. Wikipedia is not news and this appears to have been a solely news event. - Icewedge (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, if you're convinced that he's not notable, despite the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then there is nothing I can do to convince you. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When an event/person has received significant coverage in reliable sources they are "presumed to be notable", but it is not assured. - Icewedge (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, if you want to say that this person is not notable, I can't convince you otherwise. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When an event/person has received significant coverage in reliable sources they are "presumed to be notable", but it is not assured. - Icewedge (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, if you're convinced that he's not notable, despite the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then there is nothing I can do to convince you. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two types of coverage; the first type is the kind about people with real notability, such a celebrities; they are notable and people are interested in them so newspapers and magazines see fit to cover their actions, the second type that I do not think counts so much for notability are interesting stories, weird or quirky events that make a good read but no one really cares about. Wikipedia is not news and this appears to have been a solely news event. - Icewedge (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability does not expire means exactly that - even if " no one cares about him any more" he's still notable. If no-one was interested then, then why is there masses of indepth coverage of him? Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Icewedge (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What part of Notability does not expire is so unclear as to warrant a deletion debate on this one!--Mike Cline (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete/Merge to Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing. A suicide bomber is the definition of WP:ONEEVENT, it seems to me. "Cover the event, not the person." RayAYang (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That article mentions Hassan Khutari as the bomber. Are they the same person? Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:5 3, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes they are the same; Hassan Khutari was the second suicide bomber. - Icewedge (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't indicate to me two suicide bombers (at least not clearly). Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they are the same; Hassan Khutari was the second suicide bomber. - Icewedge (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That article mentions Hassan Khutari as the bomber. Are they the same person? Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:5 3, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, this event may have received "significant coverage in reliable sources", but the subject of this article even though responsible does not satisfy WP:N per WP:ONEEVENT not to mention numerous other overlapping WP guidelines. frummer (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, if the coverage of this man was only in relation to the event, per WP:ONEEVENT you would have a point. However, unlike most suicide bombers who have their name mentioned hundreds of times but never get in-depth coverage about their lives outside of the context of the suicide bombing, this person received quite a few articles that went in to detail about his life. Yes, they were prompted by his action, certainly, but they went much further than that, to ask about his childhood and life in Palestine. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is the perfect example of the negative aspects of recentism. This person's notability doesn't expire (User:Mike Cline), because he was never notable from the start. He was neither the first nor the last suicide bomber, and is not any different from these criminals in general. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
, per WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Notable for only one event. Obviously BLP1E doesn't apply, but Wikipedia is not news. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Keep - the citation issue has been addressed --T-rex 22:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2008 (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.