Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samer Abu Daqqa

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. Opinion is split between keep and merge. Since there is no prospect of a consensus to delete, there is no point in continuing this AfD. Consensus for a merger can be sought in a talk page discussion if desired. Sandstein 08:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samer Abu Daqqa[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Samer Abu Daqqa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E JM (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Killing of Samer Abu Daqqa" as per Nableezy Synotia (moan) 19:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and move to Killing of Samer Abu Daqqa - this is an unusual and notable event that has already well surpassed the coverage levels for WP:GNG. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and move per Nableezy. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What is the reason for nomination for deletion? The character achieves note clearly and prominently, and he is the first Al Jazeera journalist to be killed in Gaza! He is one of the founders of the Al Jazeera office in the Gaza Strip, meaning that he is not only a photojournalist, but one of the founders of the first Al Jazeera office in the Gaza Strip! Nominating the article for deletion or changing the name of the article is a very strange thing!!!--— Osama Eid (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason, as explained above, is that he does not pass the guidelines for establishing encyclopedic notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I don't understand why he asked "What is the reason" when I, you, and others have provided policy-based arguments as to why it should be deleted, moved, or merged. I listed 9 reasons for deletion and still he asks "what is the reason". JM (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And apparently he does not feel any of your listed reasons actually applies. Nor do I. nableezy - 02:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As to whether he feels the reasons apply or not, he did not say; all he said regarding my reasons was "what is the reason" and whether he agrees with the reasons or not, he's not even acknowledging that I provided any, let alone 9 of them. JM (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Draftify. Certainly should be a "Killing of" article rather then a bio per WP:BLP1E. Unconvinced that notability at that level is clearly substantiated yet, so I think draftifying said article would probably be a good idea as well, but the move would be most important. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (very selectively) into Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, where this journalist belongs yet isn't mentioned. All this as BIO1E. This destination is preferred over the List of journalists killed in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war that comes with the article, because the list should be merged into Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war as well. Yet the list is also a valid destination, as right now it exists alongside. Maybe by current setup the article is too refined. It's possible. Both would be legitimate destinations. My recommendation holds unless RS/I/V previous coverage ON this journalist is found. Always hard to find ON journalists as blurred by materials BY a journalist. So just tag me if you have it. I apply exactly the same standards for all sides and sorts (i.e. including for Hamas "militants", which this journalist is not). gidonb (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A journalist who deserves an article about himself and not only because of his killing. Eladkarmel (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eladkarmel Is "he deserves it" really your reasoning here? Any guidelines or policies backing that up? We should take this seriously and have a policy-based discussion, not an ethics debate. JM (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They might've meant that Abu Daqqa "warrants" an article on the grounds of his notability as a journalist rather than just his killing. Mooonswimmer 16:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, neutral on Nableezy's proposal to change the article title. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Inter&anthro Would you say that this coverage is of his death, or of his life in the context of his death? Or is there actual coverage of this person outside of the context of his death? Because if the latter is false, its plainly WP:BLP1E and the subject himself does not pass WP:GNG, so the article would at least need to be changed to Death of Samer Abu Daqqa, if not merged or deleted. JM (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be Killing of Samer Abu Daqqa as he was killed by an Israeli drone attack and did not die peacefully in his sleep. In a normal world it would be Murder of Samer Abu Daqqa but for some reason we need an Israeli court to convict an Israeli soldier of murder to call it that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . nableezy - 16:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:FORUM and remember ARBPIA JM (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing FORUM about my comment, it is about WP:DEATHS which specifies where we use killing, death, or murder. If you think my comment is an ARBPIA violation you can take it to AE where I imagine you might get a few chuckles. nableezy - 16:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is something FORUM about your comment because you admitted in that comment that you can't call it murder in the title without "an Israeli court to convict". And it's at least approaching an ARBPIA violation because "Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator." You've had blocks and bans before, you should know. If you can't follow standards you shouldn't be in this topic area. JM (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was remarking on the absurdity of needing an Israeli court to convict an Israeli soldier of killing a Palestinian for that to be called "murder". If you feel that is an ARBPIA violation, by all means report it to WP:AE. nableezy - 23:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your userbox will likely get you there soon enough anyway. For now, focus on the deletion discussion WITHOUT closing in on ARBPIA. JM (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, cool. nableezy - 00:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war per Gidonb. When the bulk of his article/notability is due to his death, a standalone wikibio isn't quite justified. The Kip 07:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. The killing may receive sustained coverage due to the subsequent investigations and might eventually warrant a standalone article (Killing of Samer Abu Daqqa). Mooonswimmer 20:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and redirect per nableezy. The death received non trivial coverage, in multiple reliable sources, and therefore meets WP:EVENT. HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you re-read EVENT which this clearly does not pass.
  1. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.
  2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
  3. Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
  4. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
-Ad Orientem (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reporters Without Borders has filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court that includes Samer Abu Daqqa's killing, which will bring along with it continued coverage about it. The coverage has been very wide and in diverse sources, from CNN (American), Jerusalem Post (Israeli), The Guardian (British), al-Jazeera (Qatari), France 24 (French). It has caused complaints to be raised to the ICC (international impact) by both al Jazeera and RWB, it has notable NGOs like the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders discussing it at depth, it has the UNESCO Director General making remarks about it. But you just proclaim that this clearly does not pass. It has been re-analyzed afterwards, it has widespread coverage in diverse sources. It rather clearly does pass, and only a refusal to engage with the sourcing can explain how somebody denies that without any semblance of a justification. nableezy - 16:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Enduring historical significance." No.
Widespread impact." No.
"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time... Yes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a reporter being killed by a drone attack is routine, a referral to the international criminal court is routine, accusations of war crimes are routine. Silly me. nableezy - 19:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Killing of Samer Abu Daqqa. Even if he doesn't personally fulfil the notability criteria, his murder by the IDF is definitely notable, since it has been widely covered in the news and elsewhere. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 18:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re not helping. nableezy - 19:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're probably right, so I modified my vote a bit. This topic just makes me very emotional. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 21:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. nableezy - 21:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the original comment, I can see it was incredibly inappropriate for Wikipedia. It calls back to the comment you made to me saying I don't think "Palestinian lives matter". If you can't follow ARBPIA and meet behavioural standards (and by your own admission "this topic just makes me very emotional"), you should avoid the Israel-Palestine topic completely. You risk a TBAN with such behaviour and it definitely doesn't belong in a deletion discussion. JM (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 24 December 2023 (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/Samer_Abu_Daqqa&oldid=1207687154"