Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian bookstore, Gaza

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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian bookstore, Gaza[edit]

Christian bookstore, Gaza (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)

Bookstore is not notable. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. All but one of the sources is openly known to support Israel and/or Zionism. TM 04:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, pending clarification from nom how NOTNEWS applies to an article that covers numerous different incidents throughout a 12 year span and why articles with sources "that support Israel" should be deleted.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one mainstream source which is cited in the article and its focus is the death of the owner, not the bookstore itself. All of the others are openly sympathetic to Israel and/or conservative Christian evangelism and thus cannot be considered to be unbiased given the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.--TM 04:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused because it appears that "you are throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks." Can you please provide a coherent explanation how NOTNEWS applies to an article that covers numerous different incidents throughout a 12 year span and why articles with sources "that support Israel" should be deleted. thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, this is (or was) a bookstore, not a church. Nyttend (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it is apparently notable as a Christian book store, although, per my comment below I don't think it shows this notability yet. Bigger digger (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion discussions I have added this discussion to the Christianity and terrorism related deletion lists.AMuseo (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This bookstore has received very wide coverage in international sources over a period of many years. If that's not WP:Notable, what is?AMuseo (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this has multiple reliable sources published over a wide range of time. Religious sources can be reliable; what's more, sources with a political point of view can be reliable. Do you propose getting rid of everything from articles about US presidential politics that depends on the New York Times, since it always endorses a candidate? Nyttend (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's more, this has information produced by Israel's most important newspaper and information produced by the Associated Press that appears in the same newspaper; these are two different mainstream sources alone. Or do you propose that Israeli sources are never reliable on matters related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Nyttend (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the nom simultaneously started an AFD on Gaza Baptist Church.AMuseo (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears my m&r suggestion is not popular. Could someone list here the sources that show notability? All I can see are items on a gentleman who was killed with a "Oh, this is where he worked" mention, and some Christian news-sources that are borderline non-trivial mentions and which might not be independent enough. Bigger digger (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect as per Bigger digger. The bookstore is not notable in and of itself. Its association with a prolonged series of violent incidents and a murder (which may themselves be notable if taken together) does not confer notability on it. Those events are also currently being used in an attempt to "confer notability" on another building/organization - exactly how many different buildings can magically achieve notability due to their connection with these events? And in that article, the murdered individual is listed as a "church leader", not primarily as a bookseller. If he had also coached a non-notable local football team, would that football team also achieve notability just by its association with these events? It's ridiculous. If he worked as a clothing store salesmen and the militants kidnapped him from his clothing store, would the clothing store then merit its own Wikipedia article? As per Namiba, the "multiple reliable sources" in this case are covering the violent events, not the bookstore. Thus any article should cover the events, not the store. The bookstore is no longer operational and is very unlikely to become operational again. It is not the Library of Alexandria or a similar facility that would have enduring historical significance. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV trojan horse. Here's the money line: The Islamization of Gaza under Hamas has put increasing pressure on the tiny Christian minority. Carrite (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When pressure on a minority community, such as the Christians of Gaza, escalates to the point of bombings of the community's bookstore and murder of the bookstore owner, it has become notable. At least according to Christianity Today, the Associated Press, The New York Sun, The Independent and many other reliable news sources....
Note - above unsigned comment was added by Amuseo.
  • Yes that may be the case, but in that case you should be writing about that pressure on the minority community, not about a non-notable bookstore (and church, and so on) as a "Trojan Horse" method of promoting your concerns about that pressure into DYK and other places. The press coverage is on the events, the violence, the bombing, the pressure; it is not press coverage about a bookstore, and it does not thereby confer notability. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources make clear that the bookstore is WP:Notable. It obtained its notability in part because Islamist thugs took the trouble to repeatedly attack it.AMuseo (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Islamist thugs"?!? POV, anyone??? Carrite (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My POV is that beating and murdering bookstore owners is bad. Reliable sources describe the perpetrators as Islamists. Thug is what we call the murderous bad guys who beat up, stab and murder innocent shopkeepers.AMuseo (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is established by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Alanohn. Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to the three keeps above, and as per my previous comment, where is the significant coverage as required by WP:GNG? The reliability of the sources themselves is not really in doubt, but they singularly fail to address the bookshop, they are reporting on the murder of its manager. This article would be better off being about him, but that would be a WP:BLP1E violation, and I therefore find the "trojan horse" arguments compelling. Please dismiss my argument by providing links to one or two sources that provide significant coverage. This would also persuade me that these !votes aren't slightly stealthy WP:ILIKEIT. Bigger digger (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The events regarding this bookstore also seem to be covered at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Gaza#Position_of_Christians citing the same sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly it is; this is entirely normal. In a single sentence "Islamist militants have also attacked Christian institutions; in 200t the manager of Gaza's only Christian bookstore was kidnapped, beaten, stabbed and shot to death by militant Islamists. The Christian bookstore has not reopened." You write an article about a church, say, St. Ninian's Church, Tynet; then you put a brief mention of that church in an article about a broader phenomenon of which it is an example Clandestine church. Like St. Martin's Church, Biberach which I linked to Simultaneum. Or look at Eliot School rebellion which I created and linked to a new sentence in History of Catholic education in the United States. This is the normal way articles work on Wikipedia. Except in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Where it seems to me that editors who have little more to offer than Wikipedia:I just don't like it manufacture arguments such "this bookstore also seem to be covered at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Gaza#Position_of_Christians citing the same sources." Or argue that notability requires "enduring historical significance" on the level of the Great Library of Alexandria.AMuseo (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to take your opinion as unbiased when you refer to someone as "martyred".--TM 17:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to follow our WP:NPA rules. The manager can be considered to be a "martyr" because he died, while perhaps not purposefully, for the cause of having Christians be more accepted in the area and to stop the violence. SilverserenC 17:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which would all be fine, except this is an article apparently about a book shop, which somewhat reduces the strength of this !vote, arguing it should be kept for WP:BLP1E reasons. If the !voter believes there is a wider issue of the persecution of Christains, then an article about a book shop is clearly the wrong article to describe that. Bigger digger (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Bigger digger makes a very compelling argument that seemingly none of the "keepers" are able to address: why is this bookstore notable (as a bookstore), rather than the events or the owner which are actually the focus of the source coverage? Question: Can we actually write an article on the bookstore itself (as a bookstore, covered in multiple reliable sources)? Answer: no. I dare suggest the pile-on "keeps" without explanation should be discounted by the closing admin. Zunaid 18:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Store is notable because of the controversy about its sale of Christian Bibles; multiple news stories cited. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cited sources establish notability. Only policy based argument for deletion so far was WP:NOTNEWS, but a bookstore is an institution, not a news item, obviously. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - funny then that all of the sources are news items, and none of them are about the bookshop as their primary focus... Bigger digger (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge - to Palestinian Christians. All but one of the sources are contemporary news stories, and the one that isn't only mentions the store in passing, thus fails WP:NOTNEWS. Also endorse comments above by Zunaid. Gatoclass (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend and Lucifero4 among others. --Shuki (talk) 22:24, 25 September 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/Christian_bookstore,_Gaza&oldid=1069103302"