Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoning of Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stoning of Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This event fails the WP:NOTNEWS policy and WP:NEVENT guideline, specifically there is no enduring notability, one or two mentions in passing does not demonstrate that. There is a spike in news coverage at the time then it all goes away. LGA _talk^edits 23:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A section with several sources was added to cover long-term notability and impact but was deleted by another editor for "undue coverage". It can easily be added again and reworked to fix the notability issue. Also, the incident achieved widespread news coverage, and the case (that of a 13-year-old girl being stoned to death after being raped) is prominent in that there were no other similar occurrences during the civil war in Somalia. --1ST7 (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the nom - passing mentions do not demonstrate that, there is no claim in the article as to enduring notability, Wikinews is that way ----> .LGA _talk^edits 01:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There was some coverage around the time of the incident, but not much on the girl/woman afterwards. The incident also had no lasting impact on society; no legislation, for example, came out of it. By contrast, the Soraya Manutchehri stoning was made into both a novel and a film adaptation, yet it's a stub article. As such, the incident is an isolated occurrence with little enduring notability. Middayexpress (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another way to look at it is these types of incidents are indeed common but this one rose from invisibility and received global attention, even condemned in the US Senate for an enduring record (the Congressional Record, Volume 154 Part 18). This is a well written well sourced NPOV article about an incident covered in multiple reliable sources, keep per WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A summary public execution by stoning carried out by an Al-Qaeda affiliate, accompanied by shooting of witnesses who objected is not at all common in the modern era, and is highly notable and worthy of coverage in this encyclopedia. The sources are there, as a Google Books search shows that the killing has received significant coverage in at least 11 books published in the past five years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enduring notability, clearly not a routine news, I cuncur with Cullen except that I count 12 books covering the event. Cavarrone 20:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I won't get into a pissing contest about how many books I can find covering this event, but, from Cullen's and my searches linked above I can certainly see far more than enough from reliable academic publishers to demonstrate that this event has become part of documented history rather than just a news event. If you look only for news sources then you will find only news sources: the way to see if a topic transcends WP:NOTNEWS is to look for coverage in books and academic papers. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen, Cavarrone, and Phil Bridger; a mere 60 seconds of searching shows that it meets the GNG. I'd add a gentle trouting of the nominator for unhelpful snideness ("Wikinews is that way"). -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for the opinions on the academic works related to the subject; I've started adding the books to the article as sources. Is it alright if I ask if there's any opinion regarding how Duhulow's age should be discussed in the article? There's currently a dispute about whether she should be described as a "female" (in reference to the account of some people who witnessed the stoning and estimated her age to be 23) or as a "13-year-old girl" (as her family and teacher said) in the opening sentence. I'm sorry to bother anyone about it, but the dispute has been going on for almost a week and I'm not sure where else to seek another opinion. --1ST7 (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2013 (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.