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 defaulting to keep. Please note I cannot see the validity of the POV fork argument, as there is no particular view in the mention of this incident in Operation Days of Penitence to fork from, nor does this article advance a POV. It expands on the smaller mention, as is not uncommon. I also note that there is a sizable list of media mentions worldwide. The delete reason "Practically every Palestinian civilian killed by the IDF qualifies as 'notable'" is an affirmation of keeping the article. It would also seem to be qualitatively different from the other two "similar" articles cited in the nom, which have reached a clear delete decision. Tyrenius 18:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Darweesh Al Hams

[edit]

(Note: This is the latest installment in my "Articles-Created-by-Alberuni-Each-Devoted-Solely-to-a-Victim-of-the-Israeli-Palestinian-Conflict for Deletion" series. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rania Siam and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar. I did not bundle this article for deletion with the others, because this article is much more extensive, as there was an IDF investigation into this clearly tragic death. However I still believe this article should be deleted for the reasons below.)

While Iman's death is obviously tragic, I believe this article should be deleted due to the following concerns:

(1) Fails WP:BIO. I don't think Iman satisfies any of the criteria at WP:BIO, including being "the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works...(Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage)." The article's coverage, and the references, are really about the incident of Iman's death and the subsequent investigation, not about Iman herself. The article includes almost no biographical details about Iman, and such details would indeed seem out of place. (Compare with the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Allen Smith.)

(2) Violates POV fork. The incident of Iman's tragic death and the subsequent investigation are already covered in Operation_Days_of_Penitence, an NPOV and extraordinarily thorough day-by-day coverage of that operation. The nominated article is a POV fork of the other article, as it "highlight[s] negative or positive viewpoints or facts." Specifically, it highlights the negative fact of the accidental shooting of a Palestinian child by the IDF. Widening the context even further than Operation Days of Penitence, hundreds of children on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been killed, by suicide bombers and by the IDF, just since the second intifada began in 2000, and this unfortunate, broader topic is also already well-covered in Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The nominated article devoted entirely to Iman's death takes it out of the context of both Operation Days of Penitence and the larger Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Pan Dan 19:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About part (1) of the nom: I think that's a little disingenous on the part of the nominator. At the very least, if the investigation was notable, and that is not denied in the nom, the article could have been moved to Investigation of the death of Iman al-Hams. I would not support that, however, as there have been several occasions where it has been decided that a person becomes notable through the manner of their death. Consider Amadou Diallo. The example chosen by the nom is, I suspect in somewhat bad faith, as the death of that individual was non-notable even by the standards of the media circuses such deaths involve. The JonBenet Ramsey murder and that girl who disappeared in Aruba are still on here. As are Diallo and another article that just survived AfD of someone who was similarly gunned down by the NYPD. WP:BIO itself says "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" meet the criteria for notability.
Thus, the investigation itself would have to be nn for this argument to go through. The article demonstrates it wasnt. In fact, I have read this elsewhere already, so I think it's very far from nn, especially given the degree of media interest in Israel itself. Hornplease 01:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Re: WP:BIO. First, as to renown and notoriety. I don't think Iman achieved either renown or notoriety. Certainly not notoriety; and as for renown, at [1], "renown" is defined as "widespread and high repute; fame," "the state or quality of being widely honored and acclaimed." Neither of these characterizes Iman. "Renown" connotes that the person did something, herself, whereas Iman, tragically, did nothing to get shot.
"Renown or notoriety" in this context means "will people search for her name?"+"will they continue to do so for some time in the future?". You have conveniently avoided the fact that that section of WP:BIO is cited frequently as indicating that people who have died in notable fashion have achieved notability. Iman may have done nothing to get shot, but that is irrelevant; because she got shot, she had renown thrust upon her. Hornplease 19:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I disagree that "she had renown thrust upon her." See again the dictionary definition. If it's true that "that section of WP:BIO is cited frequently as indicating that people who have died in notable fashion have achieved notability," then I would disagree with that use of WP:BIO. Pan Dan 20:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Renown', in the definition you yourself have given, includes 'fame', which sometimes people do nothing to achieve. This is obvious. Hornplease 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Fame" in the context of "widespread and high repute"--see again the definition--is not an accurate description of what Iman has. Pan Dan 07:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When a semicolon exists in a definition, the word or phrase following that semicolon serves to extend the meaning the phrase before the semocolon attaches to the word being defined. It does not serve to place it 'in context'. Hornplease 09:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does the other dictionary's definition ("the state or quality of being widely honored and acclaimed") not include the word "fame," or the weaker concept of fame than "high repute" that you are trying to apply here? Pan Dan 23:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second, as to precedent. You cite Amadou Diallo, JonBenet Ramsey, and Natalie Holloway. Let's take Natalie Holloway first. I do think it would be appropriate to consider deleting that article, but as her disappearance/death was an isolated incident, it simply doesn't fall into the same category as Iman's death. Next, Amadou Diallo. His death also was an isolated incident, not part of a larger story, and alone engendered widespread criticism and discussion of NYPD practices, so an article devoted to his death and community reaction is appropriate. Next, JonBenet Ramsey. Her death was unique as it engendered a widespread discussion on the propriety of kiddie beauty pageants, and as Bwithh noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Allen Smith, pertained to wider cultural trends. Iman's death was like none of these, as it was part of an Israeli operation.
Surely you realise you havent got a good enough argument in this case. Iman's death was part of an military operation. The investigation was notable in that it revealed details about what is considered appropriate during military operations. This caused widespread discussion in the English and Israeli press, and thus is notable. What part of this is difficult to follow? If her death was not unique, as you seem to - in the absence of all precedent of logic - believe is necessary for inclusion, at least the level of scrutiny and the facts that emerged in the investigation were uniquely discussed. Is it untrue that it engendered widespread criticism, defence and discussion of IDF practices? Then how is it different from the Diallo case? You have described these cases, and in none of them have you even begun to explain how they are inappropriate comparisons.Hornplease 19:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like Stalin (may his name be expunged) said, one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. Sadly perhaps, he was right. Uniqueness does confer extra notability, and Iman's death is one of hundreds. But uniqueness also has to do with the POV fork issue. The investigation into Iman's death, as I said, is already covered in Operation Days of Penitence. The others' deaths are covered nowhere else. Pan Dan 20:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my discussion below. That the investigation is covered briefly in that article is irrelevant, as the investigation extends to methods used elsewhere, and the investigation itself is hardly part exclusively of the details of the operation, which is the primary purpose of that article. You have, again, not made your case. Iman's case is one of hundreds, but the one that was discussed and hence notable. Hornplease 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Iman's case notable is the investigation that followed her death in the Israeli operation, which is why it belongs in the main article. And as I said, both the death and the investigation are adequately covered in the main article. Pan Dan 07:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You havent answered the point that the investigation and discussion is not relevant to the history of the operation, but to general IDF methods, and thus the operation page, while it should mention the death, is not the appropriate place. Hornplease 09:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See (b) reply below. Pan Dan 23:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But even if you think a comparison between Iman's and these three deaths is appropriate despite these differences, I would point out that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Allen Smith shows that precedent is not unanimous on whether to keep such articles.
Finally, as to your suggestion that this nom is in bad faith: Given the difference between Iman and the other three, and the divided precedent, that suggestion is quite unfair.
You have not even bothered to respond to (a) me pointing out that the George Allen Smith article was deleted because it was decided that the investigation was nn and (b) that you chose that particular example out of many in the opposite direction - which you now claim merely demonstrates that "precedent is not unanimous" - in something very close to bad faith. I think its clear that you wished to delete several articles. About the others, its possible that they were less notable. I certainly wasnt moved to intervene. This is, however, a notable incident, a notable investigation, a notable discussion, and to delete it as being the bio of a nn person instead of moving it to a more appropriate title, means that you think the discussion is non-notable; and that is untrue, and to attempt to achieve the removal of the discussion inappropriately smacks, as I said, of something approaching bad faith. Hornplease 19:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the George Allen Smith case shows is that dying in a sensational manner does not automatically confer sufficient notability for a WP article, which is why I cited it. Note that I put it in parentheses, asking the reader simply to "compare." I didn't think it was dispositive of this case.
As for the investigation into Iman's death, that is certainly notable, which is why is should be covered, as it is, in Operation Days of Penitence.
As for your statement that I "wished to delete several articles," I don't know what that is supposed to prove. I wished to delete several articles each devoted entirely to a victim of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And although they were all created by the same user, Alberuni, I don't assume bad faith on his part. He clearly thought these articles merited existence on WP. Don't assume bad faith on my part just because I disagree. Pan Dan 20:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Once again, you miss my point. Many people die sensationally; but a death that causes discussion of army methods and considerable study in several countries is notable in a way that George Allen Smith wasnt. (b) The article about the operation deserves to be about the operation. The discussion of IDF methods following the girl's death went beyond a specific operation. (c) My statement was that you "wished to delete several articles". The good-faith interpretation of your actions is that you let the fact that this article was created by a user who also created articles about nn individuals to affect your judgment. Hornplease 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Not to be comical here, but I'm afraid you're missing my point. See 4 paragraphs above. You imply that the Smith case was a major part of my argument for deletion. It was not. (b) You're making way too much of the "discussion of IDF methods following the girl's death." Read the article on Iman, and you will see it has little discussion in the way of general IDF practices. The discussion almost entirely involves specific allegations and rebuttals related to the incident of Iman's shooting. (c) I found these articles created by Alberuni because I find one that I thought NN, then checked to see what other NN articles the same user might have created. Obviously there's no way I can prove my judgment is not impaired. Let my arguments stand or fall on their merits, which I see have been endorsed by several others here. Pan Dan 07:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Then let's ignore the Smith case altogether, since it's not really relevant. (b) The very first paragraph declares that the crucial line in the judge's decision was that 'confirming a kill is standard procedure', which is precisely what the furore was about in the Israeli and European media. (c) Fair enough, though I think that you would do well to note that all articles created by a user with an agenda need not share that agenda. Hornplease 09:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Is too. :) Just not central. (b) The item of the judge agreeing with the defense that "confirming the kill is standard procedure" is nowhere near enough to sustain this article as a stand-alone. (c) Agreed! If Alberuni had an agenda, it is not relevant here. Pan Dan 23:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: POV fork. You cite the My Lai massacre. I don't think it's right to compare the massacre of hundreds to the shooting of one girl in the middle of an Israeli operation. The proper comparison in terms of notability would be of the My Lai massacre to the Operation Days of Penitence (during which Iman was shot), or of a single casualty of My Lai to Iman. The notability of Iman's death warrants its inclusion in Operation Days of Penitence, certainly (and it is), but not an article. Pan Dan 15:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a pointless paragraph. I do not compare the two incidents in terms of notability, as should be clear. I was comparing the application of the concept of a POV-fork, which you incorrectly accused this article of being. Notability does not feature in the discussion of POV forks, NPOV does. Please re-read what I wrote above and attempt understand its applicability.Hornplease 19:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me re-phrase what I wrote. It would be a POV fork to create an article devoted to a single victim of the My Lai massacre whose death is adequately covered in My Lai massacre, just as the nominated article is a POV fork of Operation Days of Penitence, which adequately covers the death of Iman and the subsequent investigation. Pan Dan 20:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed above, but to respond specifically: your use of the term is incorrect and it is inapplicable here. It would not be a POV-fork to create an article on a specific victim of th eMy Lai massacre, it would just be not encyclopaedic (Unless it were about the little girl in the photo, perhaps, if there was considerable discussion of her identity). The article about the operation is not the place for an 'adequate' discussion of the investigation. At some point in the future someone might point out that that article is overwhelmed with this discussion and be within their rights in removing it, as the investigation is peripheral to the operation itself. It needs and deserves its own article, and saying so is not a POV-fork, in the manner in which the phrase is used. Hornplease 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well clearly we disagree on that. The investigation is adequately covered in the Operation article; the investigation is not notable outside of the context of that operation; and Iman has little or no discussion on general IDF practices that go beyond the operation. The Iman article does nothing more than highlight a negative fact from the operation. Pan Dan 07:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The investigation cannot be said to be non-notable outside the context of the operation. The operation provided the context for the death. The context for the investigation was army policy, Israeli law, and Israeli media interest. Hornplease 09:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing what I said above--whatever this case's relation to policy or law, there's nowhere near enough to sustain a stand-alone article. And the media interest does not justify a stand-alone article. This case's relation to policy and law, and the media interest, is enough to sustain and justify what there is already in Operation Days of Penitence. Pan Dan 23:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, may I respectfully suggest that you calm down a little. Second of all, as for "articles about Israeli victims," tell me, where are the individual articles on all of the Israeli children murdered by terrorists in the Ma'alot massacre, Sbarro restaurant massacre, Dolphinarium massacre, and all the others over the years? Unless they are well-hidden, the articles do not exist. The individual victims are merely listed in the articles about the particular incidents. This nomination seeks to achieve the same result for this individual. (Adding signature which was omitted by mistake: 6SJ7 20:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Dear anonymous. These pages are not primarily about the person involved, but about the incident. The article is not necessarily about the girl, but about the way in which the girl was murdered. You could rename it "Gaza killing of Palestinian girl on whateverdateitwas" if you want. It seems logical to me that large incidents, in which multiple people were killed, should be named after the location of the incident - for example, "Ma'alot massacre". For incidents in which only one person was killed, we call it after the name of the victim - for example this article, Ayala Abukasis and Shalhevet Pass. If multiple members of one family are involved, it is named after the most notable one - usually the father, or if he is not involved the mother - such as Tali Hatuel. And there should indeed be articles on Wikipedia about each victim of the intifadah, on both sides. Virtual monuments to each of them. Not only innocent children, but even IDF and Hamas combatants. (This comment is also placed below for discussion.) --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, clearly anything but the facts should be removed from this article. The vote to keep is by no means an approval of the article's wording. But, the article concerning her definitely has merit. Take the example of Muhammad al-Durrah. He is also a child who died in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; no one would recommend the deletion of this article despite the view by some that the pictures of it are overly graphic and the article covers primarily his death and the aftermath only. Iman Darweesh al-Hams is very in terms of symbolism as Muhammad al-Durrah and may be more well known in the West.
Finally I think the vote to delete is the most POV part about this article. ZaydHammoudeh 17:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. United States House of Representatives [2]
  2. BBC *2[3] [4]
  3. CNN *2 [5] [6]
  4. The Guardian *3 [7] [8] [9]
  5. Haaretz[10]
  6. ABC [11]
  7. Al Jazeera *2 [12] [13]
  8. The Christian Science Monitor [14]
  9. Rense [15]
  10. World Socialist Web Site *2 [16] [17]
  11. Jewish Virtual Library [18]
  12. What Really Happened *2 [19] [20]
  13. Scoop [21]
  14. Independent Media Center [22]
  15. CounterPunch [23] (see this for even more references)
  16. New York Times? [24]


And more [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]

--Striver 18:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these sources do not include Hebrew-language media, or Israeli media outlets more generally, where the discussion and coverage was even more intense and long-standing. Hornplease
WP:NOT a memorial. However certain deaths are notable because of what followed or the discussion/investigation. As has been documented above, this is one of them. There has to be a place for it, and as the first part of your discussion makes clear, the article name is usually that of the person who died. Hornplease 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wow, how did you manage to miss all other sources? --Striver 00:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not so difficult if you're a Zionist. They like to ignore criticism by pretending it's only minor non-notable groups that criticize them. Criticism? Just pretend it doesn't exist, wish it away, and if necessary, mention the word 'Holocaust' to silence any and all criticism. (FYI, I'm an Orthodox Jew who does not like such things.) --Daniel575 | (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from such attacks. It doesn't do anyone any good to speak ill of other people here, or to berate "zionists". Criticise the arguements, not the editor, whether he's a zionist, an arab, an orthodox jew, or anything else. okedem 14:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That statement (that there is always a "discussion") is demonstrably false. In addition, sources have been presented and an Israeli wikipedian has stated above that this discussion in particular was notable. Given that, I strongly suggest you re-read the above points and alter your vote. I would also urge any editors -or the closing admin - to have a look at the discussion page of the article, which has been active for a long time with people arguing about the sources used, the degree of NPOV of the content, whether there should be a link to the IDF Code of Conduct, etc., etc., without once questioning the importance of the subject or the level of notability or the availability of multifarious sources. Hornplease
Speaking as an Israeli, this incident was a major scandal in Israel, and sparked more discussion, controversy and criticism than almost all others (barring A-Dura and a few others). The article should be NPOV, and bring both sides of the matter, but it's an important event (as I said - because of the public interest in it, not because of the girl, who I know nothing about). okedem 14:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete JJ211219 23:23, 21 September 2006 (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