Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manama incident

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 No consensus, default to keep. Improvements and sourcing were added to the article after it was nominated, and discussion of a different name can be continued on the talk page. Mandsford 02:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manama incident[edit]

Manama incident (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)

This is simply an article on an event of 5 days ago, concerning ad "arrest of at least one female protester" in Bahrain. It thus fails WP:NOTNEWS.

I suggested a merger to some article on Bahrain politics or human rights - that's being resisted, but I'm not even sure it merits that. The incident seems to be part of wide recent unrest, but we don't even have a general article on the unrest. Now, perhaps this may become bigger later, but for now it is simply a news story. Scott Mac 13:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article creator is currently working on expanding it. Dlohcierekim 13:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I don't think he can change the fact it is a 5 day old news story, though.--Scott Mac 13:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this can be expanded to cover the recent unrest, with reliable sources, it might make a valid article (though it might then need moving to a more appropriate title). For the moment I'd prefer to give the author a little more time to see if he can make a more encyclopedic article of it - given that he now knows it's here at AfD and might be deleted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC) (see below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    • If he wants to tell us where he's going with this, I can consider withdrawing this. But I don't see it at the moment.--Scott Mac 13:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Scott Mac. Why do I need to tell you where I'm going with it? Timothymarskell (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. --Supertouch (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In the midst of expanding it today. Should get a good page out of it. Timothymarskell (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user who started this AfD seems to have announced his wiki-retirement immediately subsequent to doing so. This seems very odd. Also, I don't mind renaming this article -- it's just that the NY Times article is the best place to start. Timothymarskell (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominators analysis and WP:NOTNEWS. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOTNEWS, with a possibility of Keep and Rename if wider notability can be shown - but rescind my earlier comment, as the duration of this AfD should be plenty of time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC) (Changed my mind again - see below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per Boing! said Zebedee. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and author is indef'd so his keep !vote is invalid (although it wasn't policy-based anyway). —fetch·comms 00:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot find anything in WP:NOTNEWS that seems to apply to this article; will the editors opining for delete on that basis please clarify? I also think the blocked editor argument is most flimsy in this case, since Marskell is not blocked; this appears to be a personal AFD rather than policy-based, and I'd appreciate more reasoned delete rationale. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:NOTNEWS clause that I think applies is "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" - I see nothing to suggest that this one event is or will be of enduring notability, but if you disagree with that, please feel free to add a "Keep" !vote. My initial comment (see above) was that as the author was still working on it, then we should not be too hasty to delete it under WP:NOTNEWS, and give them time to make it more than a single-event news story - but the duration of this AfD should be enough to see if that looks likely. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I have not actually been blocked. (Or "in-def'd" -- that's an impossibility).

I was de-sysopped, which is fine. Unfortunately, because Wikimedia decided to also block User:timothymarskell I can't log in under an account that will be recognizable to anyone. Sandy, if you would like to take time to help a friend, ask around about why the Timothymarskell account is blocked. I violated no policies with that account.

As for deleting this, I'll simply recreate it. It is now more than nine days since the incident occurred and this has received attention from multiple news organizations.

It's actually good that new editors are commenting even if they don't understand policy. This brings google hits to the page and will perhaps aid in the release of the woman detained without cause. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.97.86.98 (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I mentioned on my talk, I suspect the NOTNEWS issue can be resolved by looking at the broader human rights issues, mentioned in several sources, and not yet fully explored here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be good - I've modified my !vote above, and will be happy to change it if broader notability can be shown. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nominator's rationale, as well as WP:NOTNEWS. Please also note, it appears zero WP:RS sources are referring to this as "Manama incident". -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the article name is hindering the search for sources. I have finally found the time to locate sources (Fakhria al-Singace mentioned in this article is the sister); both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have picked up this issue.
so searching on Abdul Jalil al-Singaci lends many more sources:
and there is a merge proposal at Human rights in Bahrain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The press gag order is likely hindering reporting, so more time may be needed for additional sources to appear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The unrest in Bahrain appears to be significant enough for an article, with Amnesty International involved in objecting to the arrests, and the New York Times covering it. The article should be moved to something like August 2010 Bahrain unrest, or possibly to a bio of Abdul Jalil Al-Singace, the opposition leader whose sister was arrested in the mall. The lead would have to be rewritten, but it could otherwise be kept roughly as it is for later expansion. I don't want to try moving the title now, because the last time I did that at AfD I messed up the templates. Another option is to merge it as a subsection of Human rights in Bahrain. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on the sources I listed above, and Slim's work on the article, the topic is more than "simply an article on an event of 5 days ago", and I agree it's significant enough for an article and beyond a mere one-time news event. Whether the article might be re-named is to be determined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. Not sure what it should be renamed to, but with the extra work done and the references supplied, it's becoming apparent that this is bigger than just the one specific incident, and more than just a passing news story. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. Article has expanded from the 3 sentence stub it was when nominated and now has 8 RS sources. The rename discussion might be carried on the article talk, rather than here. Ceoil (talk) 18:19, 3 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/Manama_incident&oldid=1166569868"