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. With all due respect to those who vote "delete" (for 1Event reasons, mostly): you have a point, but there is no reason to keep this open longer with such an overwhelming number of "keep" votes. Add up the "merge" and "redirect" votes and it is clear that WP:SNOW applies; the few more days that this is supposed to run cannot change that calculus significantly, and "no consensus" is probably the "lowest" outcome possible even for a longer discussion. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Kurdi[edit]

Alan Kurdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)linus

The subject is not notable as a biography. His death was not notable in itself - one of thousands drowned in the Mediterranean while trying to migrate. Not notable for being dragged out of the water lifeless with open eyes, and having the eyes shut by the man pulling him out of the water. Not notable for later being found with face in the water, and body on land. Only the reactions to the death photos of him are notable. Burst of unj (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Lemma eventually move to "Foto of Aylan Kurdi" (...) - Brunswyk (Diskussion) 20:03, 3. Sep. 2015 (CEST)
  • "The article is about the story of the photos and their reception and effect ... and not about the persona of the boy. (...) move to another lemma". Geolina mente et malleo ✎ 21:17, 4. Sep. 2015 (translated by Burst of unj (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • "I suggest to change the name of the article, instead of Aylan Kurdi - rather "Photo of Aylan Kurdi" --Loewenmuth (Diskussion) 21:20, 4. Sep. 2015 (CEST) -
  • "I see the problems in the same way as Geoline above: The Photo is relevant, the boy is highly relevant - but not for a biographic wikipedia article." --Radsportler.svg Nicola - Ming Klaaf 10:33, 5. Sep. 2015
  • "Keep, preferably with a lemma move (for example "Photographs of Aylan Kurdi" or such), because this is less about the biography and more about the photos." --CG (Diskussion) 10:49, 5. Sep. 2015
  • "The lemma should be moved to "Photograph of Aylan Kurdi". The article consists largely of the worldwide reception of the photograph and reception of the fate of the boy." --[2] 5. September 2015, 11:03 Uhr - translated by Burst of unj (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Geolina and Nicola. (...) A biographic article is yet not in place." --Fiona (Diskussion) 12:09, 5. Sep. 2015 -- translated and placed here by Burst of unj (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment - WP:1EVENT only applies to BLPs. Flat Out (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in that guideline suggests that it applies to living people only. You may be confusing it with WP:BLP1E.  --Lambiam 11:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of respect is not a valid argument in deletion discussions. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF.  --Lambiam 12:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have not been paying attention to the relevant talk page [3]. I have created an article about a different topic, that in some ways overlaps the topic you feel should be the main topic. I have shown (thru translations) some of the significant support for the idea that only the Photographs of Alan Kurdi is a notable title/subject. I claim that this article is not a POVFORK of another article, and I also claim that I have not created it as such. Please note that I did coatrack some text about the photos in the Alan Kurdi article before I started the "Photographs- article": The reason being that the Alan Kurdi article was at the time the least inappropriate place to put the text. (If the "Photographs- article" already had existed, I would not have bothered improving the Alan Kurdi article, and I would have placed the photo related details in the right place from the start. And I probably would not have to be hearing about Newspeak POVFORK at this point in time.) --Burst of unj (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel what you are saying. If you also had mentioned Death of Wang Yue, still that example would not convince me, nor if you had mentioned Death of Benno Ohnesorg. Burst of unj (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF.  --Lambiam 12:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The structure of my argument isn't "These other pages were allowed, so this should be too". I am saying that an article titled 'Alan Kurdi' would meet WP guidelines for the same reason these other examples do. To quote WP:ONEEVENT, "In some cases ... a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved." Like Alan Kurdi, the Tank Man was himself famous only as a result of being the subject of iconic images that were captured among the events that he was a part of. The Phan Thi Kim Phuc article is yet another example.--Distinguisher (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add that Tank Man showed civil courage, by voluntarily putting his fate in the jaws of death to protect the people of China. A three-year-old is not expected to show civil courage, and we don't know that he did. Comparing Kurdi with Tank Man is inappropriate against Tank Man (whose fate some claim is unknown). --Burst of unj (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the guidelines that says to name an article after the person the event is identified with, but only if that person displayed civil courage.--Distinguisher (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to equate Kurdi with Tank Man, then I am calling you out. If one says that Tank Man risked his life voluntarily, then your quote as follows - becomes less "incomplete"; " Like Alan Kurdi, the Tank Man was himself famous only as a result of being the subject of iconic images that were captured among the events that he was a part of." --Burst of unj (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say. There are similarities and differences between Kurdi and Tank Man. I'm arguing that they are similar in relevant ways and different in irrelevant ways.--Distinguisher (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tank Man was (or is) a hero for forcing a tank commander to run his vehicle over Tank Man, or try to manouever around him; Kurdi on the other hand was a three-year-old victim of circumstances, no different than thousands of others during this refugee crisis (and his dead body figures on photos with a notable impact). Calling that "different in irrelevant ways", is a cupfull. Burst of unj (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Tank Man was a hero and Alan Kurdi was a victim of circumstances. There is no dispute about that. Both are well known across the world with significant public curiosity about, and media interest in, their biographies because both have come to represent the human face of a political issue. They each stand in a symbolic relation to those issues as icons. It is true that Alan Kurdi is among many who have drowned attempting to reach European shores, but he is quite clearly different insofar as he and not the others was turned into a politically mobilizing symbol. Tank Man is also far from being alone in having the bravery to stand up to authority. Importantly, neither would be widely known or politically relevant if they hadn't been captured on camera. It is exceedingly unlikely that there would be a WP article about Tank Man if the journalist who filmed him had only written about his actions. As brave as they were, they would have achieved nothing without that footage and he would not have become an icon of resistance. He gained that status by representing something extraordinary and being photographed.--Distinguisher (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For now I am not arguing that possibility he has become a symbol - a "politically mobilizing symbol". But whatever he has become a symbol for, then that article should have a section about him in addition to a "Reaction to the photos-" or Photographs of Alan Kurdi article. (Another alternative would be to find, or create guidelines about "politically mobilizing symbols"; what are the criteria for the notable ones?) Burst of unj (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fine wikipedians on the German page have had their deletion discussion going longer than our discussion. And part of the reason is that not even the death is notable in the case of this article, and certainly not the biography unfortunately. However, details of his life have saturated the media. Those details belong in a Reaction to the death of Alan Kurdi or Photographs of Alan Kurdi or some other title that does not start with "The death of", or simply "Alan Kurdi". Why only (?) the German wikipedia and this one are discussing that a encyclopedia should not have articles called "Death of Alan Kurdi" or "Alan Kurdi", I don't know. Sorry if someones feelings are hurt, by any perceived insensitivity. --Burst of unj (talk) 07:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably there are no similar articles (and yes there are articles out there that would not survive a deletion discussion). If the article is kept (in its current name), it is not likely that it will be kept because of other articles have not been deleted, or renamed, yet. Wikipedia does not have such a guideline. Burst of unj (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is abundant media interest in the biographical details of Alan's family, the circumstances that drove them to leave Syria, a previous attempt to seek refuge in Canada and so on, so the news media appear to regard the details of his life to be notable. It's not through his own efforts that he came to symbolize the refugee crisis, but why should that matter for notability? There have also been reports about reports including discussions about the impact of the image and whether such a private moment should have been published, etc. The existence of these meta-reports would also justify including content about the topics you take to be notable ("the coverage and photographs of his death"), but I think it would be hard to argue that the news of the events is more notable that the events themselves in this case.--Distinguisher (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, shouldn't that mean his family deserves an article? He had no say in these decisions the media is interested in. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The media interest in his family is in relation to him. It provides context about his life. And it's clear that Alan didn't come to the world's attention by achieving some feat in the manner of a scientist, artist, athlete and so on, but not everyone becomes notable that way. At two years of age, Prince George of Cambridge is also presumably notable, though through no effort of his own. Henrietta Lacks and various other people who happened to be born a certain way that later turned out be significant are notable without having any choice in the matter. We shouldn't equate regarding someone as notable with bestowing an honor on them. Notable people can be famous for doing bad things as well as good things, or just because they happened (without any particular ambition) to find themselves in a role that later proved significant.--Distinguisher (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison is flawed: Tank Man risked his life voluntarily - an act of civil courage. The article about the lady is the redirect from the name of the iconic photo (of her) - Migrant Mother. There is an unfinished discussion going on at the talk page there regarding if she is notable. However that discussion has not been closed, so it should not impact this discussion (at least not yet). One question seems to be: Are we going to lower our present threshold for biographic articles? I say no: There is enough notability for an article about "Reaction to photos of-" or Photographs of Alan Kurdi, but not for a "Death of -" or "Alan Kurdi" article. No insensitivity intended. Burst of unj (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the German Wiki, so don't mix it up. I saw many of your posts belonging to this topic. Every time you are just translating sentences from German and importing them here. --Ceroles (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The photo of his face in the surf and his body on the beach,after being dead for a few hours, influenced the debate - not his death. Burst of unj (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no. The photo is the medium which let the world know about his death. The debate is about seeing a 3 year old boy dead. You are making a semantic argument about the photo versus the content and in this case, it really is about the content. This was news because people were horrified about a 3 year old dying like that. The reason his death is notable is that the photo was available -- but that doesn't mean the death itself is not notable, the exact opposite (or more precisely, it's both the photo and the death. But like other "Death of..." articles, the Death of Alan Kurdi is probably the most appropriate title for this article, which very much should be kept. freshacconci talk to me 14:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The event being what: That he died - no differently than thousands of other migrants - or the significant publication of the Photographs of Alan Kurdi? Burst of unj (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Embarassment for an encyclopedia might be more of an issue when standards start slipping in the execution of present rules for the naming of articles. That should be "very clear". --Burst of unj (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to do a manual count. Just click the "Stats" link at the top of the page, under the article title. It will automatically total each category. WWGB (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks! I'm not really familiar with the discussion section setup. That is good to know. According to that the "keep" votes are 18, far more than the other options. -Josephus37 (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion "far more" than a vote casting. Perhaps more of an advisory discussion, where a board while decide upon the merits of arguments made and other factors, including established guidelines. If this whole discussion was stopped dead in its tracks, then a majority of 18 votes (against say 16) does not automatically mean the article gets kept, or kept under its present name. Burst of unj (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Burst of unj: Although AFDs are not votes and a majority of "keep" votes does not automatically mean keep, the number of keep versus delete is weighed along with arguments using Wikipedia guidelines. If no consensus is reached it is automatically defaulted to keep. A quick glance at this discussion shows that a majority of votes are for keep (regardless of name of article chosen) and the arguments for keep mostly use appropriate Wikipedia guidelines as justification. At this point, it is unlikely to be deleted, it will either be keep or no consensus. freshacconci talk to me 14:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is room for all notable information about Kurdi, on wikipedia. Do you think the info should only be in an article about the refugee crisis? If so, it might be logical for you to say "Merge" and "Delete". Perhaps you think that the info is notable, but that the current article name is not suitable for this encyclopedia. Then you might want to say "Merge" to Photographs of Alan Kurdi, or merge to other article names that you might find more appropriate. Burst of unj (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understood what Volunteer Marek is saying. He isn't suggesting we delete the article. freshacconci talk to me 14:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughts on the matter. Burst of unj (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Robofish: - WP:BDP - the BLP policy applies to people who died "six months, one year, two years" ago if material is contentious. BLP1E applies and is frequently cited in cases such as this. -- Callinus (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and obvious comment - "The story of this boy's death" is one of thousands drowned refugees. The Photographs of Alan Kurdi lying with his eyes and face in the surf, and body on land (sometime after his body was dragged on land) are what got the notable reaction. Burst of unj (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to give it a rest. Repeating the same thing over and over after every comment is not convincing anyone. It will be up to the closing administrator to decide if consensus is reached either way. freshacconci talk to me 22:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Çomment Burst of unj, would you please consider withdrawing your nomination, there is overwhelming consensus to merge this article into Alan Kurdi or a renamed version of same. rehashing is not productive. Flat Out (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Flat Out and would suggest that User:Burst of unj withdraw their nomination. The page should be kept. Possibly changed to "Death of Alan Kurdi" or something similar but the consensus seems obvious that deletion is not warranted. - Josephus37 (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"When one does not see them, one understands the magic which creates" an encyclopedia constructed by guidelines more than by popular sentiment or "Twitterati emotional groupthink imperatives". (Paraphrasing Bild, 8 September 2015). I think we owe it to the wikipedia builders who came before us, to do better than half-arsed thoroughness, when it comes to this discussion which to a certain degree is about application of existing guidelines. (In an ideal world, this wikipedia and the German page would make their judgement at the exact same time, so that the final decision of the one site does not affect the decision of the other one. There is a good chance that the two websites will not make two similar decisions - and that should not be a problem. About your request: I think it would be imprudent for me to request likewise on the German page - even if I could write German fluently.) Burst of unj (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Burst of unj, I don't think it is necessary to be insulting people by referring to them as being "half-arsed" or having "emotional groupthink". When we consider the treatment of other historically significant photos on wikipedia, such as the Phan Thi Kim Phuc running down the road after being napalmed or Nguyễn Văn Lém being executed, the photos themselves are arguably much more notable than the individuals but Wikipedia has articles on the people, not the photo. The only article I can see using the "photo of" title is the article Photographs of Alan Kurdi that you created. For this reason this article should be kept.- Josephus37 (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a guideline, or a guideline that was followed, then Migrant Mother should be an article instead of a redirect. Last time I checked there were few articles that started with Photograph of/Photographs of/Photo of/Photos of. (Actually I did not click the links.) Photographs of Alan Kurdi is perhaps an adequate title. Give time for names to stick in regard to titles for the various photos: "Policeman Cradling Drowned Refugee Boy", "Alan Kurdi prostrate 2 June 2015 - from the side" or "Alan Kurdi prostrate 2 June 2015 - anterior blade of foot POV". I have not been convinced by arguments that "Alan Kurdi" should be kept. However I can not see any information about Kurdi that already is on wikipedia, that could not be fitted into Photographs of Alan Kurdi or some other article name. Guidelines do not say that an article name should be "Death of", if the death was not notable (but the reactions to the pictures were). Guidelines do not say that an article name should be the name of the person, if the person is not notable (but the reactions to the photos of his lifeless body are). Burst of unj (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I have not been convinced by arguments that 'Alan Kurdi' should be kept." Fortunately, the decision isn't yours to make. freshacconci talk to me 04:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Burst of unj - There may have been articles about "photos of" in the past, but there are not now. There are pages for Photographs of Abraham Lincoln and Photographs of Charles Darwin but these are fundamentally different, they are redirects to collections of images from the whole lives of those individuals. There is also an article called Photos of Ghosts which is an music album. I do not believe that given this situation "Photographs of Alan Kurdi" is an appropriate title. The point you make about "Migrant Mother" is not correct, as the article about that individual is under the person's real name, Florence Owens Thompson, as it should be. Your "photos of" proposal is interesting but doesn't match the other comparable articles on Wikipedia.-Josephus37 (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the boy is not notable (but only the reactions to the photographs) then where in the guidelines does it say that the article name should be the same as the person that is not notable. Article names, are for subjects that are notable. All info we already have about Kurdi will fit into other articles - in the event that the closing administrator decides not to rename or not to keep. Burst of unj (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept your initial claim, that the boy is not notable. To my reading, WP:BASIC doesn't reflect this kind of hair-splitting about him and the photographs of him. I believe the examples I posted above from the Vietnam war photos are the correct approach, where the articles are about the person, not the photo. As for the Afghan Girl article you mention below, personally I would be inclined to have that article under the woman's name (Sharbat Gula/Bibi) than under "Afghan Girl". I think that "Afghan Girl" would have been a fine name for the article when her name was not known and there was no choice but to go by the photograph title. Given that her name is now known, It seems more logical to me that it be under her real name.-Josephus37 (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To my reading of wikipedia guidelines, I can not see where it says that if the reaction to a photo is notable, then the article of the photo should be deleted, and an article about a non-notable drowning of one refugee - among thousands of such deaths - should be created (or kept). No insensitivity intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burst of unj (talk • contribs) 10:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the guidelines explicitly address this. And I understand where you are coming from. I simply don't think your idea matches that the common practice on wikipedia, nor are wikipedia's guidelines concerned terribly much with individual recordings of events and people. They are much more focused on the people themselves, and this seems correct to me. Alan Kurdi is a notable person because his death was very widely covered. Yes, this occurred because of the photographs. But the photographs are significant because they show him. The vast majority of votes on this page support this idea, and while I think your idea is interesting, I think it is wrong. There is no need for a page of photos, and that page should be removed and any unique content placed on this one. A discussion can be had about whether this article should be under the name of "Alan Kurdi" or "Death of Alan Kurdi", but I don't see any good reasons, not much support, for the "photograph article" approach.-Josephus37 (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because several Vietnam War photo articles might have article names (possibly) not rooted in guidelines, does not mean it is a practice - something Afghan Girl might debunk - perhaps there is something else going on, perhaps even sloppiness in following up substandard naming of articles X, Z and Y. In the case of Migrant Mother, the discussion of renaming stalled a few years ago after some had commented (and fewer than I have fingers on one hand)? Burst of unj (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. I think the Vietnam war articles reflect the guidelines, and that your photo idea doesn't. The naming of the other articles is logical, and the Afghan Girl article is the odd one out and should probably be changed. I'm afraid that your continued focus on the photo as opposed to the person simply doesn't make sense to me. I appreciate that you went to the trouble to make an article focusing on the photos and no one likes to see their work devalued or deleted, but I think you are simply on the wrong track here.-Josephus37 (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are differing views on whether the Vietnam war photo articles reflect the guidelines. There are differing views on whether the Afghan Girl article reflect the guidelines. And what "no one likes", is experiencing attempts at having vicarious motives attached at one self; motives insinuated along the lines of "I think that you are being difficult because you don't like people tampering with the article you started, so therefore you ...". Perhaps nobody here is an expert about what "no one likes". Burst of unj (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a serious issue with freshacconci. that user is even censuring the talk page of Aylan Kurdi. As knonw from the WSJ and other media one of the main reasons were the fathers dental problems. The user freshacconci even refuses that the topic wound be discussed an is treathening on my user page. I have never ever seen this kind of behavior on wiki. 94.111.123.111 (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a place for article-relevant disputes (and your edits there are not exactly constructive). Volunteer Marek  23:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These photographs, unlike photos of other non-notable refugees, received a notable reaction. Each other death has no article, and there might not be any guideline that says that cases such as his death should have an article. Burst of unj (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in the case of Afghan Girl article "there is notable information about the person's later life, which is not possible in the case of Alan Kurdi". (Oh, and the Photographs of Alan Kurdi is not a duplication; the deletion discussion there will be revieved on its own merit by its closing administrator.) Burst of unj (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is clearly a duplication as it is not necessary to have very similar information in two separate articles. As for the two articles mentioned by Deor both of the articles have information about later life, although arguably Phan Thi Kim Phuc is more notable than Afghan Girl (Sharbat Gula/Bibi) as Kim Phuc has been involved in public activism for many years. The Afghan Girl article should probably be renamed. As for this article either keeping the Alan Kurdi name or moving it to Death of Alan Kurdi both seem fine to me. Any addition information from Photographs of Alan Kurdi could be merged with this article before it is deleted.-Josephus37 (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The closing administrator will decide the fate of Photographs of Alan Kurdi. The guidelines are not clear about articles like Afghan Girl and the Vietnam War photos. Burst of unj (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? A large part of the article relates to the Kurdi family's attempts to get to Canada, which was outside Europe the last time I checked. They were trying to get there as refugees, not migrants. Because that is what they were. Have you been to Kobane lately, where they had lived? Neither have I, but I know that there is not much left. The photographs and story have affected the whole world. Australia has changed its refugee policy as a result, for example. In any case, the refugees (not migrants) come from Syria, which is outside Europe. The Alan Kurdi story has affected refugee policy worldwide and as such it can never be a nothing story. Ever. Boscaswell (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And, might I add quickly, it has become an election issue in Canada. When I have time I can expand, if necessary, information about that, but it is definitely ongoing as a story in Canada. Aside from that, I disagree with the notion that the story is fading away. As a topic, it is independent of the migrant crisis. It may not be in the headlines but nevertheless it's beyond any notion of "one event". freshacconci talk to me 23:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, "There is a good chance that the two websites will not make two similar decisions - and that should not be a problem." Maybe the Norwegian page will step in line and change the name of their article, from "Photographs of-". Burst of unj (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely irrelevant: different wikis have different rules and operate independently. --Randykitty (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "hope the closing admin will note attempts by new editor Burst of unj to" point out errors and inconsistensies. Burst of unj (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's really not what you've been doing. Responding to almost every comment for keep is annoying. Constantly making the same points over and over again is annoying. Referring to other Wikipedias (German, Norwegian) is annoying and irrelevant. "Haranguing" is a good word for your actions at the two Alan Kurdi ADFs. freshacconci talk to me 13:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out inconsistencies and errors to a point that annoys you and a number of otheres. If I missed something can that be continued at the discussion I started at User talk:Freshacconci. Burst of unj (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been moved from Talk:Alan Kurdi#Proposed merge to Photographs of Alan Kurdi. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photos of Aylan Kurdi's corpse, which has a similar merge discussion moved from Talk:Alan Kurdi#Proposed merge with Photos of Aylan Kurdi's corpse.
  • Merge to Photographs of Alan Kurdi because I have found the opinions of plenty German wikipedians who I think have good arguments [4]. Burst of unj (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Many wikipedians on the German page want the Alan Kurdi article to be moved to Photographs of Alan Kurdi or Photograph of Alan Kurdi; i will try to translate some of the arguments. Please be aware that the rules on that wikipedia might be somewhat different than our rules. Therefore a comment there is meant for a readership with slightly different wikipedia rules. The following points are from the ongoing deletion discussion of their Alan Kurdi article:
  • "Lemma eventually move to "Foto of Aylan Kurdi" (...) - Brunswyk (Diskussion) 20:03, 3. Sep. 2015 (CEST)
  • "The article is about the story of the photos and their reception and effect ... and not about the persona of the boy. (...) move to another lemma". Geolina mente et malleo ✎ 21:17, 4. Sep. 2015 --Burst of unj (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "I suggest to change the name of the article, instead of Aylan Kurdi - rather "Photo of Aylan Kurdi" --Loewenmuth (Diskussion) 21:20, 4. Sep. 2015 (CEST) - Burst of unj (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "I see the problems in the same way as Geoline above: The Photo is relevant, the boy is highly relevant - but not for a biographic wikipedia article." --Radsportler.svg Nicola - Ming Klaaf 10:33, 5. Sep. 2015 Burst of unj (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Keep, preferably with a lemma move (for example "Photographs of Aylan Kurdi" or such), because this is less about the biography and more about the photos." --CG (Diskussion) 10:49, 5. Sep. 2015 --Burst of unj (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The lemma should be moved to "Photograph of Aylan Kurdi". The article consists largely of the worldwide reception of the photograph and reception of the fate of the boy." --[5] 5. September 2015, 11:03 Uhr - translated by Burst of unj (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "As Geolina and Nicola. (...) A biographic article is yet not in place." --Fiona (Diskussion) 12:09, 5. Sep. 2015 -Burst of unj (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Merge I can do the work too if this is the consensus. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge to Photographs of Alan Kurdi (as I've also recommended elsewhere).  --Lambiam 11:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I voted above but the merge to "Photographs of..." is preferable to the reverse. Also note that the initial proposal did not specify the direction of the merge (although the hatnotes did). —  AjaxSmack  16:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - both articles have been nominated for deletion and discussion at AfD should be allowed to take its course. Flat Out (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge - Agree with the rationale in favour of merging. There is no need for multiple articles about Master Aylan Kurdi --Pinnecco (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge . Although the boy's death was of course a tragedy per se, what is interesting is not Alan himself (sadly, he is one victim among many) but the emotional impact of these photos, and their political consequences. Henche I think we should have an article about the photos and their impact, and not about the boy. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete The death is not noteworthy aside from media interest and SIG promotion of it. At least 2,600 people have already drowned illegally trying to reach Europe. The death of one more child, while unquestionably a tragedy, is merely another statistic. The media interest in the event and SIG pressure should be noted in European migrant crisis but no page created for it. Wikipedia is not a biography for every human that has, is, or will live on this planet. 人族 (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've just made a pretty strong argument for keeping the article; the media interest. What is "SIG"?  Volunteer Marek  07:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The user also made contributions to the article, so a strong delete vote is confusion. --  R45  talk! 11:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The arguments for the Strong Delete vote "just made a pretty strong argument for keeping the" text - in another article. --Burst of unj (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At least one administrator, User:Randykitty, wants the article deleted, I mean merged. If I had not helped develop the article, I would not see a need for a separate section for "Reactions to the 2015 Boating accident off Bodrum". Boscaswell, please send me Linus' blanket/rag/cloth/sheet/towel, so I have appropriate tools for sitting down and sulking. "When seagulls following the fishing boat bla-bla (...) Eric Cantona." Burst of unj (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There are now 24 Keep's and 5 Delete's Burst of unj - This has gone on long enough!!! With what you must admit is an overwhelming consensus is it not time that you did the decent thing by Wikipedia and withdrew your proposal to delete the article? Boscaswell (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Please have a look at WP:NOTAVOTE. Your highly emotionally charged arguing here is a good illustration of why we should not create articles for events that just happened (WP:NOTNEWS). As for Burst of unj editing the article while !voting "delete": I often edit articles that I take to AfD or PROD, so that they at least look decent for the time that they are up and, of course, in case the community disagrees with me about deleting. I realize that no admin is going to burn their fingers by deleting this article, but I do predict (and I think my crystal ball is better than usual) that nobody will edit this article any more as little as one month from now. That's sad, but it's the reality. When the "Occupy" movement was in full swing, all kinds of articles were created for all kinds of minor Occupy-related events and people would come with exactly the same arguments that are being brought forward here. Now, of course, those articles still sit around, because they were kept in the excitement of the day, the Occupy wikiproject is moribund, and nobody even bothers taking those articles to AfD any more. In time, the same will happen with poor little Alan. --Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone knows this is not a vote, but this is a clear case of a snowball keep: an overwhelming majority of experienced editors have !voted keep citing policy. Consensus is pretty clear. And WP:CRYSTAL very much applies in both directions: obviously we don't know what will happen in a month or a year but there are plenty of sources right now to satisfy WP:GNG. And so this article will sit here untouched in a month? So do many articles. I'm not aware of a guideline that says that's a reason to delete. I'm sure there's plenty of math-related articles that are never edited and never read. That's not the point. We have sources, notability is established and therefore the article should stand. Burst of unj at this point is just playing games and making this discussion about him. No idea what his motives are and I don't care but there's been a great deal of bad faith editing on his part. freshacconci talk to me 16:54, 11 September 2015 (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.
    More