Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waleed Shaalan

Add links
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 Delete.

There's undoubtedly a certain amount of coverage about Shaalan. However, it is an established principle on this project that otherwise NN people who rec'd attention merely because of the circumstances attending their deaths should not get their own articles. As much or more coverage went to every victim of 9-11 and most of the American soldiers killed in Iraq. We cannot and should not host the memorial articles for these people, unless they have independent notability through which they stand out from the rest, e.g., Mychal F. Judge, Lori Piestewa, Liviu Librescu.

That much is principle. Now the application.

Most of the delete opinions touched on this rationale. I credit iridescenti, chaerani, tewfik, et al. for making the distinction between the faculty and students. Old timer ugen64 also opined to delete. The keep side consisted of appeals to multiple references (DGG et al.) and a variety of inappropriate arguments like the Pokemon fallacy or Islamophobia, which I ignored. Ultimately, the delete side is in line with our 9-11 and Iraq precedent.

Finally, I was disturbed to read the following exhortation on the linked-to MuslimMatters site, which was probably responsible for some of the SPAs that flooded this AfD: "SubhanAllah, Br. Waleed gave Muslims an opportunity for dawah in his own death… he left behind a legacy for us to latch on. We cannot let it die. Americans of all faiths are listening; let’s make sure they heart this story too.So, what can you do? Cross-promote the story, whether this link on MuslimMatters.org or other websites stating it." Using Shaalan's death as an opportunity for evangelism is quite unsightly, and weighs heavily against the opinions of the "keep!!" SPAs at this AfD. The outcome of the debate is Delete. -- Y not? 03:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Shaalan[edit]

Waleed Shaalan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Individual with single instance of notability related to Virginia Tech massacre. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Please see similar AfD for Ryan C. Clark. UnfriendlyFire 05:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who is the student that he supposedly saved? How come I have never found the student's name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oribel (talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • KEEP I read through the Liviu Librescu entry for comparison, and there simply is not enough reason for the two entries to merit different treatment. Librescu is a Holocaust survivor. Nowadays, that just means that he lived in Europe during the period that the Nazi party governed Germany. In fact, Librescu was merely confined to a few detention camps toward the end of WW2. Librescu has a lot of publications, but they tend to be papers that focus on better approximate solutions to certain non-linear equations or reports of various failure modes for various materials used in aerospace engineering. These sorts of papers are useful in aerospace engineering design, but they are not particularly notable, and an engineering professor that has many graduate students will generate a lot of these types of papers. I read through the accounts of Librescu's heroism. He could be a hero, but I have examined many reports from tragedies and from the early days of wars. People find the heroes that they need. Librescu hears noise in the hall, goes to the door, gets shot, falls into the door, his body blocks it, and he moans in agony. The students hear him call out to them to flee especially after they get together to discuss the incident afterwards. Both Librescu and Shaalan seem sufficiently notable in terms of newspaper accounts that the individual entries should remain. If one is removed, the other one should be as well. Otherwise, both entries should remain. The discussion makes me think of some of the analysis of the martyrization of Yosef Trumpeldor at Tel Hai. The early Zionists needed to create a cult of death and martyrdom. They used the battle of Tel Hai as a source. When I read the accounts, I was always skeptical that Trumpeldor really quoted Virgil in Hebrew as he lay dying. Later, when I researched the history more deeply, I found that my doubts were justified. I am irritated that this discussion of Shaalan and Librescu seems to have a subtext that some of the Wikipedia community desperately want to find an Israeli Jewish hero in this tragedy (even if he is a yored, i.e., an emigrant from Israel) and equally desperately want to declare a possibly heroic Arab Muslim as unworthy of special note. I have frequently seen this sort of phenomenon as I have studied the history of Zionism in Palestine. ThorsProvoni 16:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC) — ThorsProvoni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment KEEP. The guy is a hero and is famous now in Egypt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abureem (talk • contribs) 15:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment The above reasoning is circular. You admit that he is notable yet want to delete the article on the ground that he is not notable. 5 separate articles from credible newspapers plus a video of interviews with students from a credible TV outlet all of which verify his distinctive heroism establish otherwise. And where is it written that subjects with a single instance of notability don't get Wikipedia articles?Mosura 00:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)— Mosura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • You already pointed out the flawed logic in the discussion below where I have left my reply. UnfriendlyFire 01:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, we are. Emily Hilscher is up for deletion and Ryan Clark's article was redirected to the main article. See my original nomination. UnfriendlyFire 06:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And on all those others I'll be !voting delete too unless they can show WP:N aside from the incidental fact of where they died - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually we are debating removing other victims' page and some have already been removed as a result of these debates. --Crunch 09:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not notable, according to WP:BIO regs. Not a memorial, etc. Pablosecca 08:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep' - he is completely notable on the basis of his publications, his honours and awards, regardless of his attachment to Virginia Tech. Far more notable than the pornstars, cartoon characters and garage bands that that grace WP. Gillyweed 11:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What "publications...honours and awards"? The current version of the article details no such items. Are the unmentioned items sufficient to pass WP:PROF (I know he's not a professor but the argument seems to be based on academic accomplishments and merits)? --ElKevbo 18:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness - what happened here? I ended up on the wrong AfD. When I clicked on the 'holocaust surviving professor' I got sent to this page... Was that some sort of vandalism? I'm quite confused. Delete
  • Delete - do we really have to go through this process 32 times? A biography can be "built" around anyone with enough effort. The victims, individually, were generally NOT notable. WWGB 15:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment- because he wasn't just a victim. he saved a life as well.
  • Comment. Despite the repeated claims, often by the same person, that "he saved a life as well," there is actually no evidence that this is true. Yes, he was brave. Yes, he apparently blocked a door. But we do not know and will never, ever, know what the killer would have done if the door had not been blocked. Would he have barged back in and continued shooting? Maybe. Would that shooting have resulted in deaths? Maybe. Or maybe, the killer would have walked away, or gone to another classroom. Maybe, just maybe, the blocking of the door by Waleed, caused the killer to take more lives because he couldn't enter that room and he went another where more killings happened. Think about it. All of this is mere and utter speculation and altering of a history that never happened. And, yes, this is true for Prof. Librescu as well, because I know people will ask. We do not know that he saved lives, and to suppose otherwise, is to fabricate a future that never happened. Librescu qualifies for an article because he meets WP:PROF. Let's put an end to the comparisons on that. --Crunch 00:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - You really aren't paying attention, are you? Waleed Shaalan did not block a door. That's what Liviu Librescu did. Waleed Shaalan distracted the gunman's attention away from several other students, as verified by those other students. Please take the time to view this article's references, especially the video. Mosura 11:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have reviewed the references. The same exact logic applies whether the reports are that he blocked a door or distracted the gunman. It is unknown whether this resulted in saved lives, the same number of lives lost or more lives lost. We cannot make statements about a future that didn't happen. --Crunch 23:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Aside from a couple of the faculty members who at least warrant a discussion over their academic achievements, these victims were students and by definition hadn't had time to accomplish anything. I look forward to seeing a page for every soldier killed in WW2 by the logic the "keep" voters are using - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, wikipedia is not a memorial. Stubbleboy 18:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --ElKevbo 18:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what is not notable about standing up to one of the worst murderers in American history? Wikipedia isn't a memorial but it does tell things as they are. Not every soldier in World War II was notable in such a way. This man's position was proven by eye-witness accounts. He has been featured in media reports which not every soldier in every war has. To compare this to World War II is ridiculous! --DevelopedMadness 18:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per DevelopedMadness. --Neo-Jay 19:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per standard Notability guidelines. This person is not notable aside from the fact that he was a victim in the murders. Kntrabssi 19:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge with main article Virginia Tech Massacre, the VT students (including emily, ryan) are not yet notable with publications, honours, awards. However, the individual pages of VT faculty / professor victims should be kept (ref librescu, loganathan, granata). Chaerani 21:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete; content contained within parent article; violates WP:NOT

  • Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre; The information is contained in that article in greater detail; there is no need for a separate article on each of the victims, lest they have independent notability (as some of the VT staff do) --Mhking 22:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to main article per Chaerani. Rockpocket 23:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Virginia Tech Massacre, as should happen for all victim articles. Even though Wikipedia is not a memorial, a section on the victims could contribute to the article. --KaufmanIsAwesome 01:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy/Snowy Delete - none of the students should have individual articles. No, it should not be merged into Virginia Tech massacre - it's already plenty large. We don't need bios on everyone who died. It would be nice if List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre gets kept and that article can have a one-liner about each student telling their major or whatever, but we absolutely 100% do not need individual articles and it cannot be merged into the main Virginia Tech massacre article. I strongly suggest that an uninvolved admin quickly close this out. This series of articles is highly visible and needs to be kept presentable, not having xFD templates all over creation. --BigDT (416) 02:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep on the basis that there are articles on him now to meet the present technical requirements for N. (there is now the Washington Post as well as the NYT)-- these papers think that each individual victim is appropriate for an article. So will other papers, which will provide many more than the necessary two sources. There is obviously no real consensus about whether 2 RS are all that is needed for N, regardless of the subject. The rules seem to say so, some people seem to think so, many of the people here do not agree. If delete in a case like this really is the consensus it may simplify some of the N discussions now going on, because this seems to be clearly saying that being the subject of independent feature articles in 2 major newspapers is not always enough for N. This unmistakably indicates we cannot combine the rules, and that we now mean articles must have 2 independent RS and also meet some additional notability criterion, whatever that may be. That's what the delete opinions above are saying. I don't say this is wrong, but I do wonder if this is proposed as a general rule for WP. DGG 04:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are at this comment posting already 5 separate and independent published articles from credible news sources focussing on Waleed Shaalan's heroism plus a TV video that expands on those articles with interviews from students showing that he saved three people. This thoroughly establishes the notability of Waleed Shaalan and clearly distinguishes him from other victims who died.Mosura 00:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)— Mosura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Redirect: This content is repeated elsewhere, and does not warrant an article of its own since 100% of the content is related to the VT massacre. I will only change my vote to a weak keep if the article has content that is not directly related (i.e., if a scholarship were named in his honour or something that isn't repeated elsewhere, and would only make sense to have here). +mwtoews 04:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable before death and nothing about his death, even the claims of heroism, which are hardly substantiated, make him notable. Can be included in List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. --Crunch 09:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. John Vandenberg 09:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.202.25.172 (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC).— 196.202.25.172 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Per the reasons stated on several other victim articles. StuffOfInterest 19:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and Comment: I'm really against all these VaTech AfDs popping up immediately after the creation of the articles. Doesn't everyone know that there's absolutely no way we can get an organized and level-headed discussion about these articles while the emotions are running so high and the events are in everyone's mind? And that's not even mentioning the SPAs or possible/probably sockpuppetry. I say wait a few weeks, let the events settle down and cool down before engaging in an AfD. Only then will we be able to get a proper deletion discussion. Rockstar (T/C) 19:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If we do that, people will say "you left it up x weeks, why are you picking on it now?". There's no 'right' time for something emotive like this, and at least getting the discussion out of the way now saves people wasting time and effort expanding them if they're going to be deleted - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, there is no right time for discussions, but my point was that we could have a better discussion in a few weeks. But you're right, let's have this now, and if it gets kept, let's revisit it in a few weeks. Rockstar (T/C) 20:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep, because well written and well referenced article that even includes a nice image concerning a victim in a historic and media-worthy tragedy in which people conducting research and using this encyclopedia will assuredly be interested in looking up. Moreover, the story written in the article about this particular individual shows some travel and other distinctions that add to its notability. Finally, as information continues to come out, this article is likely to be fleshed in further and so the nomination for deletion is simply jumping the gun, i.e. way too quick and suspicious, sadly. --Horace Horatius 20:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many of the things you want to keep this article for are irrelevant. How does having a "nice image" affect this subject's notability? What kind of distinctions did he have? Being a doctoral student? Being from Egypt? Being "very active" in the Muslim Student Association? Tejastheory 23:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any information about his heroism can be included in the main article. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No brainer keep, because obviously meets quality and notability for inclusion. Bravo to article creator! :) --172.167.132.145 23:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)— 172.167.132.145 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Speedy Delete for reasons that have been gone over multiple times in other AfDs. Doesn't appear to be any notability at all in academic terms, and I don't believe simply being a victim is enough to be notable. I think, from the professors' AfD, we've reached a clear consensus that being a victim by itself doesn't make anyway notable - all of the professors have had to meet the requirements of WP:PROF, and as a simple student, I don't believe that is the case, nor do I think that any editors will suddenly discover some remarkably notable academic research that is attributed to Shaalan. Tejastheory 00:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The information is coming from multiple reliable sources, notability is inherent in the coverage. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a notable individual ugen64 03:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the list or the main massacre page. --Witchinghour 05:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre Rafy 05:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. it is too soon to know whether or not he is notable in the US or in Egypt. At least another week...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.207.140.183 (talk • contribs).— 71.207.140.183 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, as was done with Emily Hilscher. The only thing that sets Mr. Shaalan apart from the other victims is that he may've distracted the gunman (and was shot as a result) in order to save another student; this can be noted in his section of the "list of" article. Of course, if Mr. Shaalan becomes notable for something outside having died in the massacre, I will fully support the article's recreation. Jeff Silvers 11:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-create Emily's article. The redirect was really disappointing and unfortunate and hardly a consensus move. --Horace Horatius 15:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. At this point it seems unlikely that there is any particular connection between the victims, and in any case it is not the role of wikipedia to speculate on possible connections, or to start articles based on the subjects' potential to DEVELOP notability - we wait for other verifiable sources to establish notability and information, and only then do we compile that information into an article. Tejastheory 23:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, dying in a notable event doesn't make one notable otherwise we'd have millions of notable people who died in WW1, WW2, the Irish Potato Famine, 9/11, the Titanic, etc., all of which were notable events leaving lots of dead people. Carlossuarez46 19:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to main page. Support nom. xC | ☎ 19:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per well-argued reasons by other keepers above and also suggest recreation of Emily's article as consensus was hardly reached and new information about email contact between her and Cho has been reported by MSNBC. Thus, redirect happened too rapidly. --164.107.223.217 21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as the article about Liviu Librescu is being retained without consideration for deletion. There was no wikipedia article about Librescu prior to his murder. The first history for his article shows up on April 17, 2007. Both Waleed Shaalan and Librescu are notable for their heroic resistance to their assailant. Contrast this with the Wikipedia memorials for people who merely made telephone calls from Flight 93, or who supposedly offered resistance to attackers. Start with the most obvious one, Tom Burnett which even contains a photo of his memorial. Continue with Mark Bingham, Edward P. Felt, Todd Beamer,Honor Elizabeth Wainio, Cee Cee Lyles, Lauren Grandcolas and Jeremy Glick (September 11, 2001 attack victim). Considering that as with Flight 93, wikipedia does indeed memorialize victims, the evident remaining reason for considering deletion of Waleed Shaalan can indeed only be considered as founded in Islamophobia. In addition it would be a shameful irony if in the end only the Virginia Tech assailant receives an article for supposedly having done something "noteworthy". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.249.231.202 (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC).— 70.249.231.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Thank you for your wise and well-reasoned argument - I especially enjoyed the part where you called me an Islamophobe. I would suggest you read the policy WP:AADD. ugen64 22:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah that was a good one :-/ Medico80 22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • People must get it into their gray matter that Librescu and Granata were noteworthy before the article due to their professional achievements -- especially Granata -- and Librescu was distinguished due to his widely noted heroism. G. V. Loganathan was included too, I think without justification, but the admin ruled twice and I accept the adjudication on a complex issue (at least for the time being). Wiki members must keep it in mind that it is unhelpful to call people Islamophobes or misogynists (as was the case in the Couture-Nowak debate) and keep their minds, such as they are, on policy citations. Oh, and one other thing: this rationale that "the article isn't noteworthy now but it might become noteworthy so let's leave it in" is codswallop -- and not the same thing as erring on the side of caution. Pablosecca 23:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ugen64 must mean the part of WP:AADD that reads, "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged (see also the section WP:AADD#Just_a_policy_or_guideline below)." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.249.231.202 (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC).— 70.249.231.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        • Sigh... let's talk policy... assume good faith. Your original comment called all those who supported the deletion of this argument Islamophobes. Not really assuming good faith, is it? Stop being a punk (see? I was civil enough to change the wording) and respect the fact that Ugen64 was trying to help you out and introduce you to the complex world of AfDs. As is stands, your further comments are invalidating your original argument. Rockstar (T/C) 00:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent,6 and independent of the subject."WP:BIO|Primary criterion for Notability of people] Waleed Shaalan has met these requirements. Nowhere is notability excluded because of the stated reasons here, such as "single instance of notability" or because he was a student(!). Gdo01 admitted early on that accusations of Islamophobia would be a likely concomitant of this discussion. He was right. Waleed Shaalan is easily distinguishable from the other victims up for deletion, because he didn't simply die, he rescued someone else. And truth be told, that's the reason that Librescu gets a bio. I'm sure you realize that had he simply died of old age, there would be no article for him in Wikipedia. I've already pointed out that indeed there was no article for him until April 17, 2007. What made him notable was his selfless heroism in protecting students. The same goes for Shaalan. The chief difference between Librescu and Shaalan is their religion. No rational claim has been advanced that Shaalan is not notable. So what other conclusion can be made other than that Islamophobia has once again reared its ugly head? But I'll consider any intelligent response. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.249.231.202 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC).— 70.249.231.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
            • Comment. I take offense at being accused of requesting the deletion of this article for any reason other than Wikipedia-related. From reading the article on Liviu Librescu, he was a world-renowned expert in his field of research. That he didn't have an article before his death is no reflection on his notability -- his death just brought him to the attention of a wider audience. Evil Monkey - Hello 01:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment To everyone considering a response: remember, don't feed the trolls. Taking this discussion further won't get us anywhere and will just detract from the AfD. Rockstar (T/C) 01:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment. I have added 3 additional and different article cites about Waleed Shaalan's notable heroism to the main article from Sky News, USA Today and The Chronicle of Higher Education. Mosura 10:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)— Mosura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
              • Comment. I have edited the intro and added a video from WDBJ documenting the fact that Waleed Shaalan saved three lives, not one.Mosura 13:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)— Mosura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. NN bio. WP is not a memorial. Keb25 03:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because of notable biography. --172.131.174.231 03:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — 172.131.174.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Nyttend 17:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Unless all victims of this tragedy are deleted, this article should be kept. These victims may not be notable in and of themselves, but their loss in this tragedy made them notable and brought their lives to light. Finding something notable about a victim, does not mean that their post should stay, because the reason for the posting is the fact that they are a victim, the rest are merely 'excuses' (for a lack of a better term) to keep them. I am ALL the profiles of the victims should stay. However, if we delete this one, we must delete Liviu Librescu and his notable deeds as well.
    • Well, the difference is, that there are plenty of testemonies stating that Librescu's actions did indeed save other peoples lives. And then add his record as a professor which is strong enough for inclusion in its own right. There is no evidence that other dead victims have done anything "brave". Besides, I think your all-or-nothing approach has been rejected in the many 9/11 victim discussions. Medico80 22:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Hello everyone. Waleed Shaalan is a notable person for many reasons. The first and most important is that he saved his classmates life. He, unfortunately for him, is now a part of U.S history, because he he was killed in what is described as the worst school shooting incident in American history. Waleed Shaalan is notable for another reason. He emigrated from zagazig, Egypt, an extremely poor region of egypt. He is notable because not only did he finish his education, which in that area is an accomplishment, but he received an offer from Virginia Tech to teach as well as work on his Phd. That in and of itself is an accomplishment and is notable. Lets not forget that we have to keep in mind this persons situation. Everyone is different, and for him to actually make it here is remarkable and notable. Secondly, it is notable that he left his entire family to come study in the united states. It is notable that he was respected by a number of professor and students. As you can read in the articles, everyone has remarked on how hardworking and intelligent he was. I believe that this person is notable and that this wikipedia article should remain. He is just as notable as Liviu Librescu. If this article is deleted than so should Librescu's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) 18:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC).— Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WALEED SHAALAN SAVED A LIFE. HE MADE AMERICAN HISTORY BY SAVING A LIFE, THUS NOT ADDING TO THE DEATH TOLL. IS THAT NOT NOTABLE??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) 15:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC). — Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment While all of the things you stated are very true, and very nice, they still don't make him "notable". There are many such personal stories everywhere around the world, of people from poorer situations who have worked their way up to better situations. While it may be a very nice story, and he may have been working toward great things in life, and he may have even been a really incredible person, none of these things really say anything about his being important in either an academic context (as many of the professors were) or in a historical context (simply "being a victim" really doesn't warrant more than possibly a small blurb in the collective victims page. Tejastheory 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentHe is not just a victim Tejastheory he is a HERO he SAVED A LIFE. This is not just a nice story. HE WAS A PART OF AMERICAN HISTORY. And his act IS notable. Or is saving a life not notable anymore?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) 17:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC). — Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Strong Keep - There seems to be no debate at all that Liviu Librescu is notable, and his article was created for the exact same reason as Shaalan's: he died a hero, sacrificing his life to save the lives of others during the worst shooting massacre in American history. Is a student sacrificing his life to save others somehow less notable than a professor doing the same thing during the same incident? Of course not. No, we should not have articles for every person killed in the Virginia Tech massacre, but people who have widely-reported, individually significant involvement in the event certainly are notable enough to merit their own articles. Claiming that Shalaan was just another victim is dishonest and offensive. And as for Shaalan having only a single instance of notability...the same would apply to Seung-Hui Cho. Redxiv 21:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will people stop using Librescu as an example as to why this article should be kept? Librescu fulfills WP:PROF, and so you're comparing apples and oranges which just happened to be from the same backyard. What we need to do is separate our emotions from these and actually figure out if they fulfill WP:N. I'm sorry, but Cho did something notable. As unfortunate as it is, Shallan did not. Rockstar (T/C) 23:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - So, committing mass murder is notable, but saving people from a mass murderer is not? That seems a bit twisted. Not to mention, unsupported by any consensus I'm aware of. The articles for several Flight 93 victims who fought back against the hijackers indicates otherwise. Redxiv 04:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Wikipedia doesn't distinguish between good and bad. But yes, being a mass murderer is more 'notable' than being a life-saver. Christopher Connor 18:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, the term notable as it is used at Wikepedia, does not mean the dictionary definition. It means that there are sufficient notices from different reliable sources to adequately describe the subject. Despite the brilliance and/or serendipity involved, whoever first discovered how to make fire is not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense, because there are insufficient notices from different credible sources (a total of zero) to describe the subject. With Waleed Shaalan there are multiple separate notices making Waleed Shaalan an independent subject of articles in a variety of credible media, including a video from WDBJ and articles from the New York Times, Sky News, USA Today and The Chronicle of Higher Education. All those notices are made in prominent credible sources that are themselves subjects of Wikipedia media entries. So Waleed Shaalan has met the test of notability in the Wikipedia sense.

Second, this entire deletion page is an absurdity, and a very insulting one at that. Go to the very top of this page to see the basis of its establishment. This page is predicated upon the oxymoron that Waleed Shaalan is not notable because he is an "Individual with single instance of notability related to Virginia Tech massacre". Thus in the very establishment of this page, it is formally acknowledged in circular fashion that Waleed Shaalan DOES have an instance of notability, thereby invalidating the very claim that he is not notable. There is nothing in Wikipedia to require deletion of subjects that involve a single instance of notability. There are many thousands of such subjects, if not millions. That Waleed Shaalan is made the target of such an attack is very offensive.Mosura 23:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — Mosura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment - If he was truly non-notable, then he wouldn't even be mentioned in the main article or the list of victims; however, this point is obviously not true. From the AfD of the list of victims articles, Waleed is collectively notable and as such his heoric actions can be documented where appropriate. The point is that his notability is derived from a single event, which really isn't what I was trying to get across as the reason for deletion. Please read the next sentence in my nom. Wikipedia is not a memorial and this article solely focuses on his actions during the massacre and nothing else. Wikilawyering my nom and accusing me of being an Islamophobe isn't helpful to the discussion. UnfriendlyFire 00:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the circumstances of his death are notable (which they are), then he's notable. This isn't a memorial, it's an article about a man who is individually notable as shown by multiple media reports about his actions. Redxiv 04:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Everyone, let's put strong political feelings aside which seem to be fueling this argument. Librescu is included in Wikipedia because he was a notable scholar and professor in his field and deserved to be included regardless of what may have happened in the massacre. While both reportedly acted fearlessly in the face of great danger in the Virginia Tech massacre, that's not the basis on which we are deciding the inclusion of either of them. It is a very ugly situation to assume that this has something to do with the fact that Librescu was a Jew and a holocaust survivor and Waleed was an Egyptian. It has everything to do with the fact that Librescu was a full professor, 76 years old with an established and esteemed career. He would have met the criteria for a Wikipedia article even if he had been nowhere near the shootings on April 16. Shallen was just a 32 year old grad student, yet to establish himself in his career. Please, let's understand this. --Crunch 00:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Librescu had no article prior to the Virginia Tech massacre. Had he lived out the rest of his life peacefully and died of natural causes, it's unlikely that anybody would have written an article about him. For that matter, it's far from guaranteed that he would've gotten an article had he merely been another victim of the shooting, rather than someone who acted heroically during it. To say that his article was created because of his academic career is just not accurate. Librescu has an article because of the circumstances of his death. Thus, comparing him and Shaalan, who died in the same event while taking similar actions, is entirely valid.
This is akin to someone claiming that that Todd Beamer merits an article but Jeremy Glick doesn't. BTW, neither of those men had done anything prior to 9/11 that was notable; the actions leading to their deaths were sufficient to establish notability. Or better yet, let's look at Andrew Garcia and Edward P. Felt. The latter gets an article because...he made a phone call. The former, because he might have fought back against the hijackers (no source cited). If these people are notable, then certainly Shaalan is as well. Redxiv 04:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sr13 (T|C) ER 02:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a memorial. He isn't notable in any way. All he did was die. That isn't notable. Titanium Dragon 05:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It's interesting that those advocating deletion have to make factually incorrect claims to justify their position. Redxiv 06:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I think it is far more intersting that the page had a link to a memorial site inline, indicating the true purpose of this page. Wikipedia is not a memorial. He wasn't notable. Sorry. Titanium Dragon 08:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - By that "logic" the page for Ronald Reagan is a memorial since it mentions his death and includes a link to a memonial site. We have citations from reliable sources (three major newspapers and a major television news network) to show his notability. Redxiv 16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Liviu Librescu has an external link to a "Librescu Family Condolence Page". Does that indicate the true purpose of his page is a memorial? I think not. Neither does the link to a memorial site for Waleed Shaalan indicate that the "true purpose" of the article on Waleed Shalaan is to memorialize him. Clearly with 6 reputable national and international sources that separately detail his heroism Waleed Shalaan has the requisite notability that separates him from the other victims. Mosura 18:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)— Mosura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Easy decision Yuber(talk) 13:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per user:DevelopedMadness. This is not a memorial but an article about a notable person who seem to have enough reputable sources writing about a heroic (that alone doesn’t make it encyclopedic) incident. It meets all the criteria of a biography Taprobanus 14:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is that possible to have a single page named Victims of the Virginia Tech Massacre. They all collectively are important to have an article but I see no need for individual articles on them. Please someone make a back-up of this very good written page so that we can use this material later on, in case of deletion. regards, --- ALM 16:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already do — it narrowly survived its own AfD last week — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - No one is arguing that every victim of the massacre should have an article. Only those who are individually notable get articles. The dispute is whether Shaalan falls into that category. Apparently some people think that since he was a student rather than a professor, his actions being reported in numerous reliable nationwide and international media sources somehow is not enough to establish notability. Redxiv 00:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have changed my mind after reading NY Times report. It make him important enough to have a seperate article on him. --- ALM 17:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to "list" unless a case can be made per WP:PROF, per Chaerani. All of the deaths were tragic, and his heroic actions should be recorded on the main page (as I believe they are now), but we must draw lines, however painful, for the sake of the project. TewfikTalk 19:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I specifically sought out the subject of this article as I was researching cases of possible heroism during the shootings. I specifically wanted information regarding the background of the possible heros and specifics regarding the incidents of possible heroism. This article provided the information I was searching for about a specific subject, and was both the most complete and easily accessible article on the subject. kamatoa - 25 April, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.228.243.82 (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC). has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • DELETE - for notability reasons mentioned a billion times already, above. much respect to waleed for his sacrifice, though. Jgw 23:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - List_of_victims_of_the_Virginia_Tech_massacre is good enough for now. Maybe if more information is uncovered or notability increases the subject should then have his own article. The article as it stands now is a bit too much of a memorial. I am suer everyone here wishes the best to all who knew Waleed.--Diletante 01:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why does Wikipedia have THIS article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeley_Dorsey

Noted for dying on a football field. Article notes: NOT a major recruit. Please, if we keep Keeley Dorsey we should have an article for every VA Tech victim. If we delete Waleed Shaalan, we should delete people known for nothing else other than 'dying'.R Young {yakłtalk} 06:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, "other stuff exists" really isn't a valid argument - having an article that breaks the rules doesn't make it okay for other article to break the rules. Natalie 15:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest nominate that article too for deletion. --- ALM 17:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Heroic he may or may not be, but notable? No. Christopher Connor 18:38, 26 April 2007 (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/Waleed_Shaalan&oldid=1142246860"