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.
Keep at least two newspaper articles written so it pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) as he has been "the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". // Liftarn
Comment But the sources just cover his death. Why was he notable other than dying ? Article asserts he was a "would be student" who "hadn't decided what he was studying" - just being killed, even in these distressing circumstances, is not on it's own a criteria for notability. Pedro | Chat 09:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see anything in the guidline requiring a specific reason for fame. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL doesn't apply since the requirement "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." is fullfilled. // Liftarn
Reply Please see WP:N#Notability_is_not_temporary. This guy was not notable when he was alive. Nothing in the sources indicates he will be notable in the future. Just because the subject has been covered in the news does not mean we need an encyclopedia article. I respect you are not personally involved but just because the article meets the criteria of coverage does not initself make the subject notable. To clarify the notability thing: I have reports of a gas main being dug up on my local road from two independent verifiable resources (e.g. the BBC and a local paper); neverthless the gas main and roadworks are not notable although they are verifiable.Pedro | Chat 10:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but my divinations skills is a bit low so I find it hard to tell if he will keep being notable of not. But considering the events it's likley the issue will consider to generate interest even in the future. The gas main is unlikley to do so. // Liftarn
Yep, I know but WP:CRYSTAL and per my above link. If the guy becomes notable at a later date the article can always be re-created. The point is that his notability at this time does not fit with the guidelines, IMHO. Pedro | Chat 11:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He currently is notable (no dubt about that). Nobody knows if he will remain notable or not. So it boils down to if you are a deletionist or an inclusionist. Anyway, I moved the article over to Wikinews so it is available there. This Rodney King incident mey remain notable or not. // Liftarn
Comment: I am neither friend nor family and as per above WP:NOT#MEMORIAL does not apply. Post-mortem fame is not the same thing as a memorial. Take Patrick Stewart (soldier) as an example. // Liftarn
DeleteWhatever the circumstances may be, whose version is the truth, and even if the victim is Jewish or Palestinian, Jihad is just another pointless and NN death in the current Oslo war. The move to wikinews is sufficient. --Shuki11:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just as not everyone killed by suicide bombers deserves an article, neither do all people killed by the IDF. At most include a line about the event in one of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles. Number5714:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And? I didn't say delete the article because it isn't current news. I said delete because not every victim of the conflict is notable. Number5711:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having a separate article about every detonated bomb seems to me like a bit of an overkill as well if we should use your logic. // Liftarn
Clubs and rifle butts, not knifes. Compare it with articles like Rodney King and Reginald Oliver Denny that also only became known for things done to them. And for that matter the entire category Category:Crime victims. The guidlines does not support deletion based on Humus sapiens' claims. // Liftarn
Perhaps if this guy's death had started something like the 1992 LA Riots (I'm not American, but I've heard of Rodney King) he might be notable, but obviously it hasn't. Number5712:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's just US centrism. OK, I've also heared about Rodney King, but what about Reginald Oliver Denny? How many have heared about Allen Benn or Helen Brach? // Liftarn
So nominate them for deletion too then. Benn in particular seems non-notable, though the Brach issue at least has some connection to a well-known company. Number5713:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because somebody has been covered in the press does not automatically make them notable, Liftarn. If both the Daily News and the NYT lists the name of someone shot in the Bronx, they get their own article? The policies need to be applied WITH common sense; having an article for this person lacks common sense. -- Avi13:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it of general interest? Then yes (but then I'm an inclusionist). However they are just local newspapers. Did the hypothetical shooting became international news? // Liftarn
Keep. Doesn't seem to be a memorial. There are in-depth reliable source articles that are solely about the person and the way he died, so it appears to satisfy WP:N. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, as he is dead. I don't see anything wrong with this article. JulesH16:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:NOT#NEWS DOES apply. What is this person notable for? Including the fact that he is dead? There are many, many dead pepple whose obituaries appear in multiple newspapers. Do we start adding each and every one? ABsurd, in my opinion. -- Avi17:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is notable for being beaten to death when he was handcuffed and on the ground. Obituaries may be used as a source (note that the article in question does not use a obituary as source, but newspaper articles) and death notices aren't usable since they are esenssialy advertisments. // Liftarn
Delete per our notability guidelines, which this individual fails. We need multiple, non-trivial mentions. If such mentions accrue in the future due to any sort of building controversy, then the entry can be recreated. TewfikTalk21:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We have multiple (count them) non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. // Liftarn
Delete as non notable. Nothing here convinces me that there is lasting interest rather than being summed up in 'In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability'. Nuttah6812:17, 20 August 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.