Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalil al-Mughrabi

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. No prejudice towards renaming. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil al-Mughrabi

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Each of these deaths is obviously tragic, but shall we have an article on every single one? Sorry, no. It fails WP:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event. This is not WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Also, note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rania Siam + Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihad Shaar + Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar + Ibrahim Muhammad Ismail: if those were non-notable, why should this be notable? This has no media coverage. Crystalfile (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the arguments on the parallel The murder of Yehuda Shoham‎ deletion proposal. By the way, to be coherent, you cannot support the deletion of this, while supporting the retention of the other page, as you have done. You are required to be coherent in your judgement of policy here, and not indulge in ethnic oneupmanship.Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other article is sourced to the Independent, New York Times, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, the Washington Post etc This has no media coverage. If this changes so will my vote! Crystalfile (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified you on my page that the reason you have given does not correspond to the facts, since there are considerable RS not used so far, books included, for this person. Therefore either change your vote on the parallel page to delete, or withdraw this nomination.Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You showed no media discussing this event by itself unlike other example which had many news reports. Crystalfile (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep ~~as the incident lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOT#NEWS.~~ Will not comment on WP:OCE but it points the general conensus. --DBig Xray 11:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep as my concerns have been satisfied by the recent edits by Nableezy, the article looks less POVy and more informative. The rest of the things can be discussed on the talk page and decided per consensus.--DBig Xray 19:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: I am a neutral/uninvolved AfD contributor. I had already seen the earlier AFDs presented by the Nom, and I still stick to my keep vote because this incident had made sufficient impact on the international arena and received necessary coverage to pass WP:GNG. This incident was not just another bomb-blast or war casualty. And it must not be viewed as such. --DBig Xray 20:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no more propaganda

Exx8 (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per this, Exx8 appears to be a biased partisan in the I/P topic area and little to no weight should be given to their vote. Not that their argument has any weight to it anyways. Silver seren^C 07:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no RS. why is it even a question? looks like the article has been improved to include RS. by the way, neither btselem nor pchr are reliable except for statements they might make about their own work. they are not reliable for numbers given. Soosim (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that makes two I/P editors who are requesting a keep for one article on an Israeli child, and asking for a delete on a similar killing of a Palestinian child. Since as I showed here, this article, which I think should be deleted, has far stronger book and mainstream newspaper based RS for it, neither you, Soosim, nor Crystalfile should be using ethnic preferences, which appears to be the case here. Please vote coherently on both pages, or stay off them if you cannot manage an impartial judgement.Nishidani (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are now reliable sources in the article, this vote by Soosim should be entirely discounted, unless they return to strike out their argument and make one that addresses the current state of the article. Also, per this, Soosim appears to be a biased partisan in the I/P topic area. Silver seren^C 07:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop slandering editors bc how u inagine their ethnicities! Which media discuss this incident by itself, which is diff to shooham where many media inc the NYT, jerusalem post, the independent specially discuss that murder. Crystalfile (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entry is entirely original research with a large helping of unreliable testimony based on input of a biased advocacy organization. Additionally, the article is illustrated with an unlicensed, copyrighted photograph. --Mahmoodinsky (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)--Mahmoodinsky (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doubly false. See the talk page sources.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Crystalfile nominated this a few hours after voting to not delete The murder of Yehuda Shoham as a tit-for-tat deletion proposal. Seems like a violation of Wikipedia behavior guidelines to me. The reason claimed for this case being different ("no media coverage") reflect the existing state of the article but not its potential. Actually this case was widely reported and is still mentioned in the press occasionally:

"Israeli army kills Palestinian boy during clashes in Gaza" - radio. BBC Monitoring Middle East - Political, 10:34, 8 July 2001
"Fighting in Gaza Kills a Boy and Clashes in West Bank Wound 4". The New York Times. 8 July 2001
"Palestinian boy shot dead in Gaza". BBC News 8 July, 2001 [1]
"Hamas Threatens 10 Suicide Bombs After Boy's Death‎". New York Times - Jul 9, 2001
"Mine kills soldier in unarmored jeep" By Amos Harel, Haaretz, Jul.17, 2001
"Israeli rights group blasts army over boy's death." Reuters News, 14:38, 14 November 2001.
"Death of a Child: How Israel's Army Responds", New York Times, November 13, 2001
Israeli Army's Response To Child's Death Criticized" Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - Nov 14, 2001
"Are Israelis Off Hook In Slaying?" The Deseret News - Nov 13, 2001
(Many other reports during the same several days omitted, includes Toronto Star, Cambridge Reporter, Courier-Mail, Irish Times, etc etc)
"Half-truths and double-talk continued" By Sara Leibovich-Dar, Haaretz, Jan.23, 2002
"A catalogue of carnage". The Guardian, 5 March 2002
"'I can't imagine anyone who considers himself a human being can do this': On Friday a four-year-old Palestinian boy was shot dead by a soldier - the most recent child victim of the Israeli army, The Guardian, 28 July 2003: page B2
"What do an outpost, a Palestinian child and a pacifist have in common?", Haaretz, May 10, 2010.
"Israeli press stymied by gag on affair reported abroad", Jerusalem Post, 08/04/2010.
Coverage in books: [2] [3] [4]

So not only was this the tragic death of a child, but it occurred in circumstances that made it a continuing public scandal. Zero^talk 12:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, this article needs work to clean it up, source it better, and make it look less like a memorial. That is possible because a large part of the story is about the political and military consequences of the incident and not (unlike the other article) just about the death of a child in clear circumstances. Actually it is quite like Muhammad al-Durrah incident and only the fact that it wasn't filmed makes it less famous. It should be renamed "Khalil al-Mughrabi incident" or similar. If all that is done, there is no case for deletion. Keep. Zero^talk 13:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. This was discussed before any page was nominated for deletion. Look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_murder_of_Yehuda_Shoham and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Activism1234#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FThe_murder_of_Yehuda_Shoham . Stop with the accusations! Crystalfile (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote above "This has no media coverage. If this changes so will my vote!". Now that Nishidani and I have shown plenty of media coverage, I invite you to change your vote as you promised. Zero^talk 13:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok there are same coverage on Yehuda article.Are you going to change your vote?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I found the coverage here is that people falsely claimed there wasn't any (let's assume they don't know how to use google effectively). The other article is entirely about the original event and does not indicate any consequence or controversy or anything at all beyond what memorial articles have. We don't do memorial articles on Wikipedia. Zero^talk 04:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at news reports but they seem to touch upon it unlike being focus of the story. e.g. Settlers' baby dies after Palestinian stoning and It's as if we've been abandoned' are direct on the story. things like "Mine kills soldier in unarmored jeep" arent. (I am interested to see how u vote here and how it contrasts with ur delete vote in article about israeli child!) Crystalfile (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you selected the one of the 13 press reports I named whose title appears the least connected to the incident and claim it is representative. I have to say, you are really not looking good. Zero^talk 13:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might, on the strength of what I have uncovered, have to change my own, but not the principle at stake. The principle is that editors should not be scouring rare sources for on-off incidents that have no wider reverberation, violating the principle that we should not cover non-notable tragic events. Examining a dozen sources today, I see that in fact this incident led to a protracted (reflected in books) inquiry, internal investigations, a whistle-blowing episode by Btselem which managed to obtain internal IDF documents that challenged what the IDF publicly said. Thus, this is certainly not a one-off event, and challenges the principle I set forth, because unlike the other article, it had an extensive follow up in reportage, and fits more the circumstances of the two other articles I think should be kept. Consistency is the point, and so far I have seen very little of that here in the reflex delete voting of some parties here.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are happy to accuse people of "ethical prejudice" but then also *happen to* vote differently. do this accusation only apply to people who u think r jewish? u r unbeleivable. Crystalfile (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People who try to play that card have no argument. Please reply to the points raised.Nishidani (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Also seems like some propaganda, but I would not press much hard on that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Keep The article now looks more encyclopedic. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is simply astonishing to me that somebody can make this vote and this vote. Or this nomination and this vote. Or this and this There have been only a few times where Wikipedia has actually disgusted me, so thanks for making the list. Apparently only Israeli children killed by Palestinian violence are "notable". A Palestinian child killed by Israelis? Oh dear no, we cant have that. Even mentioning such a thing is "propaganda". Truly shameful behavior. nableezy - 14:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the entire article relies on only 3 references. 2 of these references are from B'tselem, which is anti-Israel, and has been heavily criticized for its bias and often distortion. The other reference is from UNRWA, an organization devoted specifically for Palestinians, and may constitute WP:OR. The references are terrible and heavily biased, and they form the basis of the article. Thus, I call for it to be deleted. --Activism1234 14:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not see the list of sources Zero provided here? nableezy - 14:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list of references are a pile on. Most of the references either mention it tangentially, briefly, or as part of an ongoing fighting, even those that mention it in the headline (and most mentioned it along with some other attack as well). The references (see New York Times, Ha'aretz...) also contradict what the WP article says, which makes it sound like he was just playing soccer. In reality, the references, interviewing friends and Palestinians who were there, say he was throwing stones and was fighting against Israeli soldiers when he was killed. --Activism1234 17:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you saying? If the sources mention him tangentially he's not notable. If the sources talk about him enough to contradict the WP article, he's notable and the article needs to be fixed. The article obviously needs to be fixed, but that's not an issue at AFD.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references either mention it tangentially, briefly, or as part of an ongoing fighting. That is an unequivocal falsehood. So is say he was throwing stones and was fighting against Israeli soldiers when he was killed. The Israeli report itself says that no stones or other projectiles were thrown at Israeli troops in the hours prior to al-Mughrabi being killed. Where are you coming up with that? Because it isnt in any of the sources. nableezy - 18:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article no longer relies on only the references that Activism1234 is speaking about, his vote should be discounted unless he returns to strike out his original wording and add an argument that addresses the current state of the article. Furthermore, per this, it can be seen that Activism1234 is a biased partisan in the I/P topic area. Silver seren^C 08:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zero. Leaving aside all the partisan sniping and waving around of the mutilated corpses of innocent children that's happening above, this topic is hugely covered in reliable sources on an ongoing basis. The decision we're making here must be based on that rather than on the state of the article now. If the nominator was serious, rather than trying to make some kind of point, then WP:BEFORE doesn't seem to have been adhered to so very closely. The nominator's tacit linking of this with other deletion discussions makes me doubt good faith. WP:OTHERSTUFF is bad enough for !voters, but should most definitely not appear in a nomination statement.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zero. --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Zero000 has provided a horde of sources dealing with this subject although the name should definitely be changed to "Death of Khalil al-Mughrabi." Article has great potential for expansion and I urge "delete" voters to consider all this. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, most of the references touch on it tangentially, while others (as opposed to this WP article) such as NYT or Ha'aretz mention he was throwing stones and was part of the ongoing fighting. Should we also list every soldier killed in World War II? That'd be about 25 million people. And if he was a civilian, should we also list approximately 45 million civilians killed in World War II, with 13 million of those being civilians who died from disease or famine, and 6 million for everyone who was killed in the Holocaust, and the majority of the rest being those who were killed during the fighting or bombings of cities? It's just an analogy, not something we would actually do. --Activism1234 17:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Falsehood after falsehood. To begin with, not a single source says he was throwing stones, he was playing with his friends in a soccer field a half mile away. Second, several sources are specifically about this killing and the following investigation. Please do not write blatantly untrue statements. nableezy - 18:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing me of lying? And on an AfD page, no less? OK.

Here's a Ha'aretz ref Zero mentioned - "The IDF said of the incident that troops opened fire in response to gunfire, and grenade and fire bomb attacks in the the southern Gaza strip, near Rafiah, where violent confrontations are a daily occurence. Palestinian sources said that Mughrabi was throwing stones when he was killed."

Here's a NYT ref Zero mentioned - "Suleiman Akhras, 14, a friend of Khalil Mughrabi, said they were among a group of boys throwing stones at Israeli troops late Saturday when the soldiers opened fire."

I demand you strike out your comment that accused me of lying. --Activism1234 19:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The stone throwing occurred earlier in the day, when al-Mughrabi was killed, and this is from the Israeli military report, no stones had been thrown for hours and he was a half mile away from where the soldiers had been aiming at. So no, your statements remain unequivocally false. There was no "ongoing fighting", and saying that is simply making a knowingly false statement. nableezy - 19:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm going to go with what The New York Times and Haaretz said, as opposed to an anti-Israel group called B'tselem. --Activism1234 19:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. If you want the NY Times, take a look at this: In Khalil's case, meticulously documented interviews in the army file show that he was shot several hours after stones and grenades had been thrown at Israeli armored vehicles patrolling a road between the Gaza Strip and Egypt. Or if you're looking for Haartez, then try this: The chief military prosecutor at that time, Col. Einat Ron, said in her response to B'Tselem that the IDF soldiers involved were not suspected of any criminal behavior. Apparently her letter included, by mistake, the operative file on the event which included her personal opinion, where she wrote frankly. "A reasonable possibility is that the fire did not hit the children who were identified as rioters" but rather "the children at the football game, at a distance of 1,000 meters from the location of the event. If these were warning shots," she wrote, "they were fired in contravention of the orders which instruct that shooting be done from light weapons, not from heavy machine guns, and not in the direction of children." Those work for you? nableezy - 19:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's so funny? Once again, that's all from B'tselem. I don't see the point in getting so tied up over this one fact, as opposed to my actual reasons for deleting this, which still remain... --Activism1234 20:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even funnier. That's all from the Israeli military report, not B'tselem. Try again. nableezy - 20:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hysterical. Btselem report. The word "btselem" is mentioned 5 times in the Ha'aretz ref, same with NYT ref. So we can go with B'tselem, we can go with what his friends said, or we can let people write their opinions on whether it should be kept or deleted per previous AfDs without waging a war on a sidepoint and distracting editors here from the main AfD. --Activism1234 20:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

meticulously documented interviews in the army file. Of course the story talks about B'tselem, B'tselem brought the cover up to light. That doesnt mean that the stories dont also talk about the army report which conclusively determined that al-Mughrabi was playing soccer with his friends a half mile from where the operator of the tank-mounted machine gun was aiming at. nableezy - 21:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See AfD Rania Siam, Afd Jihad Shaar, and AfD Mkheemar as precedents for similar articles that were deleted concerning Palestinians killed in the ongoing fighting and conflict. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. --Activism1234 17:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article using the sources provided by Zero above. If somebody wants to offer a reason for deletion other than a lack of coverage please feel free, as that is plainly no longer true. As such, Keep. nableezy - 18:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - please see AfD Rania Siam, Afd Jihad Shaar, and AfD Mkheemar as precedents for similar articles that were deleted concerning Palestinians killed in the ongoing fighting and conflict. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. --Activism1234 19:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Palestinian children of course. For Israeli children however, you apparently feel that we should obviously keep such pages. How incredibly surprising. nableezy - 19:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... What a disgusting assumption. Are you trying to imply that perhaps this 5 month old baby was somehow connected to the fighting, or was killed in an area of a military assault/bombing? My reasons for keeping that article are clearly listed there, and trying to distort what I say or make assumptions about me is really disgusting. Please review WP:AGF. Thanks. (btw, I have yet to see a vote from you on that page "keep" since you obviously want to keep this one). --Activism1234 19:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the reason "Article X is... so why shouldn't this article..." is a pretty bad excuse, besides the fact there is zero comparison between the two. --Activism1234 20:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this child was not connected to the fighting, and the Israeli military's own report said that. But your comment at that page was: This was a prominent event that made major headlines in Israel, but also made international news, as seen by references in The New York Times and The Independent. The article is well written and well referenced, unlike some other articles on the topic. Substitute The Independent with The Guardian and the exact same rationale applies here. So no, the "assumption" isnt what is disgusting here. nableezy - 19:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I prefer what The New York Times and Haaretz will say about the incident (he was throwing stones) over an anti-Israel group. Sorry. Once again, you're failing to realize the difference between these two incidents, which is most regrettable, as that is leading you to make incorrect assumptions about me that are extremely offensive and rude, while at the same time you support this article staying you don't write on the other article that it should stay as well. Again, I, like many others here, oppose this article for a few reasons, and would rather stick with that then get to a side point that won't lead anywhere. --Activism1234 20:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I directed you to a NY Times and a Haaretz report of the Israeli military investigation, reports that make a mockery of your hand-waving and your transparent attempts at differentiating between the two articles. But since you are unable to answer for the fact that your exact rationale for keeping that article applies to keeping this one, yet you are arguing to keep that and delete this, I dont see a point in discussing this further with you. nableezy - 20:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read them, note the words Btselem. Once again, I'm going to repeat that this incident is nearly the same as those ofAfD Rania Siam, Afd Jihad Shaar, and AfD Mkheemar, all of which were deleted per Afd. You want to disagree? Fine. But I'm not going to wage an argument over people's opinions, especially when it will just result in terrible assumptions and thinking that one knows the mind of the other. --Activism1234 20:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what those articles looked like when they were deleted, and neither do you, and it really doesnt matter. I note the rather careful phrasing in your comments, that precedents for similar articles that were deleted concerning Palestinians killed in the ongoing fighting and conflict. (emphasis added to demonstrate the point). Please dont try to act like this isnt what it so obviously is. And you still have not addressed the point that your rationale for keeping the other article applies, with the exception of one word, to this article. I havent seen an answer for that. Funny how that works out. Well, not really, but Id rather laugh than cry. nableezy - 21:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on a Palestinian. Those were articles on Palestinians. Hence, I wrote "Palestinian." The article on Yehuda can be discussed on its AfD, and comparisons between the two cases should not be drawn, as there are no comparisons, and it is beyond shocking that you are implying that you accuse me of hypocrisy (while you still don't vote "keep" on that article). Don't try to twist my words. Just don't. It's wrong. Btw, Al Jazeera wrote about Rania Siam, which was deleted, "Rania Siam was killed by either automatic gunfire or fragments of tank shells as she played outside her home on Friday, the sources added." Sounds a lot like Khalil. The same can be said for the other two as well. And yet, as the AfD wrote, "While obviously tragic, Siam's death is no more significant than the hundreds of children killed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the last intifada began in 2000." I say the same thing for Khalil. And before you ignore everything I just wrote, I'll repeat that Khalil's case can not possibly be compared to Yehuda's case, at least to me (and all the other people who supported that it remain). I explained this all on that AfD, and if you have problems, you can take it to that AfD, rather than try to make assumptions or accusations. Although I'd be surprised if you oppose that article - after all, you support keeping this one. And arguments "Well that article... So this article must..." aren't very good ones either. --Activism1234 21:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I havent made a single comment on the other AfD, and I dont intend to. If you ever see me hypocritically applying disparate arguments based on the ethnicity of the victim, you may feel free to call me a hypocrite. You are right about something, this case and the other isnt a fair comparison. In this case we have a government cover-up of the incident widely discussed in reliable sources. In that case there is the actual killing of the child, and not much else. So yes, there is a difference. Just not one that strengthens the argument for deletion of this article. nableezy - 21:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because that would create a vote in favor of keeping an article about the deaht of an Israeli child? Well, that's your choice. But please refrain from interjecting personal opinions and bias into article. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox for those types of allegations. The main difference is one concerns a person who his friends said was throwing stones and was in a military conflict area at the time, while another was sitting in the car returning home and not in a military conflict area when a stone smashed into his head. Of course, there are editors above like Nishidani who disagree, and say that both articles should be deleted, like the AfD precedents I mentioned, but that's his/her opinion, you have your own opinion, and I have my own opinion. The purpose of this AfD is to collect votes on the subject. That's it. You really want to continue this nonsensical argument? Feel free to do so on my talk page, rather than clutter up this AfD. --Activism1234 21:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not why. nableezy - 22:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the futile bickering. The article you want eliminated is 3 times longer than the one you wrote, has far more references, including academic RS, and doesn't have the POV bad taste to wear a title like 'The Murder of Khalil al-Mughrabi' while your heading shouts it (The murder of Yehuda Shoham). Having done some work, I still think external editors should clarify the borders re notability. Apropos soapboxing, you've created or helped create over the last month three new articles whose theme is only- Israeli is a victim. Old articles here go begging for serious work on complex topics, and the abuse of bandwidth to create stubs on these on-off events is deplorable.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It became longer only recently. And the Yehuda article can also be expanded, albeit that's not a reason to delete it. If a kid in 5th grade kept a journal and he wrote in it every day about what happened to it, and then made the article "Life of X in year Y" and was 500 pages long, I'd call to delete it, for obvious reasons. See the talk page of the Yehuda article, I specifically said the title should be changed. I may have created 3 articles (and claiming that the purpose it to give a victim mentality is a gross, incorrect assumption which I completely deny and explained before), but I've contributed greatly to far more. Also, you may want to look at Deeper Life Church shooting, an article I created about Nigeria, and to which I'm baffled about what it has to do with Israel... Either way, you made your opinion on this AfD, I made mine. There's no reason to continue further and clutter this AfD. --Activism1234 21:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Rania Siam (no citations, 3 external links) and Jihad Shaar (2 citations) were barely more than stubs and not at all similar to this article. Both of them were correctly deleted. Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar was nominated twice, the first time with result keep and the second time with result delete. At the time of deletion it had 4 external links but only one was used as a citation. It did not have any content beyond a description of the event and a comment from a UN official. It might have been possible to turn it into a useful article, but without investigating more I don't think so. Anyway, it also was nothing remotely like the present article. Please stop claiming precedents when you don't have any. Also, the question of whether al-Mughrabi was throwing stones is entirely irrelevant to the deletion debate, please stop introducing irrelevancies. Zero^talk 04:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm voting keep in both this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The murder of Yehuda Shoham, because the notability of both is very, very evident (with Khalil al-Mughrabi having a slight higher amount of notability than Yehuda Shoham, in my opinion). The references and coverage are clear here for meeting notability standards. And I must say that all of you Israel/Palestine editors are horrible. This whole thing is the most obvious bias in regards to the topic area that i've ever seen, voting to keep the one that is from your country and delete the other. You should all be topic banned from this subject area. Silver seren^C 04:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A fairly close call here. No one would dispute the tragic nature of the incident, the question being whether this is a single incident excludable on a "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT NEWS" basis, or whether this was an incident of lasting sociological or historical importance. Given the multiple references months after the fact in top-line mainstream media sources (cited in the piece), my own view is that this incident remains something more than an "ordinary" death in the long-running Palestinian-Israeli civil war. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain On the one hand, there is sufficient specific international attention and some rather weak evidence of continuing notice. On the other, I agree that the article is outrageously non-neutral in the degree of emphasis . The question is then whether we must remove an article because we cannot make it neutral, I've always argued otherwise, that NPOV can be enforced. I've just been rereading the many enforcement actions for ARBPIA, and I must admit that this rather discourages such optimism. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you say what exactly you mean by outrageously non-neutral in the degree of emphasis? nableezy - 21:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't have time to check the references to give an opinion on it notability, but I will say, that if it is kept the name needs to be changed to "Killing of Khalil al-Mughrabi" or "Death of Khalil al-Mughrabi". Cla68 (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is already under discussion at the talk page here: Talk:Khalil_al-Mughrabi#Name and would certainly have been done if not for the AFD being in progress.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Rename, the death of the subject appears to be what is notable. If it weren't for the death the subject would not be notable, therefore how this really should be considered is under WP:EVENT (and possibly also WP:BLP1E), and the event does appear to pass WP:EFFECT. Therefore the article should be appropriately renamed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2012 (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.