Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge (but keep for now). I know this is very much a non-standard closure, but there is a reason for it - numerically the outcome of this discussion is clearly in favour of merging, but we have to go deeper than that as AfD is not a vote. The reason for the merge !votes is almost universally because the subject is notable only for one event, although various policies and guidelines were mentioned they all boil down to not having notability outside of the context of the attack in Nice. A good proportion of the arguments to keep were based on comparisons with other perpetrators with articles of there own, particularly Anders Behring Breivik, but those were refuted based on the much more extensive (in terms of both volume and scope) coverage in their articles. One argument, made by both keep and merge voters was WP:SIZE - the latter basing their view on the size of the article at the time of their comment and the former based on predictions of article length in the future. Predictions of article size are weak arguments when dealing with articles that are not about scheduled events or clearly foreseeable coverage, for example if Lahouaiej-Boulel had survived the attack it would not require a crystal ball to know there would be extensive coverage about a trial or reasons why he could not stand trial. However he is dead and so this coverage will not happen, and so the future shape of the article is much less clear so I found the "merge now, possibly split later" comments the stronger. In total I found that around half the keep votes were either successfully refuted in whole or in part or were so weak as to not need refuting (there were only 3 explicit delete comments, and one of them was, while tragic, not relevant here).

Had I left it there, I would have just closed this as "merge" and moved on. However, there would be little point recommending a merge if it would just overwhelm the target article, particularly when most of the merge votes were actually "merge now, split again later if needed" so I had a look at this article and the target article, and a straight copy would clearly overload the main article. However there is quite a bit of duplication, and so I mentally subtracted that and the result was very borderline - so much so that if this were a merge discussion I probably shy away from offering an opinion one way or the other. Closing this AfD though doesn't give me that luxury, so I am swayed by E.M.Gregory's last comment to the discussion from 2 days ago changing their !vote from merge to keep on the basis of then-breaking news. Accordingly I am closing this AfD with a note that there was a clear consensus in favour of merging, but to hold off merging for a few weeks or so. If after that time the article is still about it's current length and there isn't significant additional coverage, of e.g. subject's relationships with the (alleged?) accomplices, then a merge discussion will be worthwhile. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply

PS in case it is not clear above, there is consensus that Lahouaiej-Boulel is not notable independently of the attacks in Nice, but it is borderline wheher there is enough written about him in that context to justify a spinout article from 2016 Nice attacks on article length grounds. If the amount of non-duplicated content increases in the next couple of weeks the article should almost certainly not be merged, if it does not then a merge discussion to confirm the consensus arrived at here (there could be other significant changes in the meanwhile) is recommended. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel

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

The subject is not notable outside the context of the 2016 Nice attacks. No need for his own article; delete and redirect to 2016 Nice attack. GSMR ( talk) 14:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I have put the following on the article Talk page too:
My view is that considering the high death toll of the Nice attack and its corresponding significance, this justifies having a page solely for the attacker. I think this is the general rule that has been followed. For example, Ibrahim El Bakraoui, Khalid El Bakraoui, Najim Laachraoui and Mohamed Abrini and Osama Krayem all have their own individual Wikipedia pages despite being only involved in a single attack (Brussels)
Amedy Coulibaly also has his own page even though he was notable for his involvement in a singular event.
These are clear precedents for an individual page. The proposed deletion should be removed/rejected
Dave8899 ( talk) 15:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity ( talk) 15:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity ( talk) 15:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity ( talk) 15:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size.
-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 16:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per the CRM#2 as follows: The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.[11]
obviously fulfills that description exactly Dave8899 ( talk) 16:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
CRM#2 also says "Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." It's WP:TOOSOON to know about persistence. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
This person killed over 80 people, and wounded 200 more, do you really think that nothing more is going to come out regarding this person? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Do you know there will be? WP:CRYSTALBALL-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 17:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I feel that when this AfD runs its 7 day course we will know for sure by then. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I am changing my opinion to (Merge to 2016 Nice attack#Perpetrator) based on WP:SIZE. It has been a few days now, and nothing major has come forward to expand the article beyond its current state. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
It is not particularly unusual: see Vehicular assault as a terrorist tactic. Neutrality talk 00:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
So everybody that has ever been described as "strange" and "unusual" should be allowed a Wikipedia article? That isn't exactly what WP:NOTABILITY means.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 17:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
You are missing the type of attack being notable which falls under CRM#2. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
You are missing the caveat "Where there are no appropriate existing articles"-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 19:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • We can not have a AfD and a Merge discussion going on at the same time. One is ongoing at the articles talk page. Either close this or the merging discussion.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 17:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary section break

Breivik had a notable trial, and then a notable imprisonment. Still could do more. This guy's done doing things. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The key difference between Bouhlel and all these other attacks is that these other perpetrators' articles actually offer a comprehensive biography of the subject, not just four sentences about what they were doing before the attack. There simply isn't enough known about Bouhlel to warrant his own article at the moment ( WP:TOOSOON) ( WP:RECENTISM).-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 17:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
" ... but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size."-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 18:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
... not only. Not if the event he is associated with is significant and his role in it was both substantial and well documented. See WP:BLP1E Erlbaeko ( talk) 19:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
A couple paragraphs is not "substantial" or "well-documented". Most of everything that is known about him is already in the main article.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 19:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I have 3 further concerns about the fork article. Firstly it uses immoderate language not allowed in the main article: as an example the subject is described in the lede without sources as a terrorist, while investigations are still in their infancy. Secondly standards for WP:RS have been relaxed to allow salacious details into the article, none of which appear even in summary form in the main article. Thirdly a large amount of content in the fork is still being created by copy-pasting new content from the main article without any attribution. the flow has not gone the other way so far. Mathsci ( talk) 08:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
WP:DUPLICATE and WP:OVERLAP are both valid reasons for merge.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 22:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
You do realize that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is there precisely to show that "other stuff exiting" is not a valid rationale for anything on Wikipedia, unless the other stuff exists because it is backed by policy (in which case, the rationale is the policy, and the stuff is just an example)? LjL ( talk) 23:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I used OTHER STUFF EXISTS with full knowledge that it is listed as one of the WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The addition of the words "in high numbers" was also deliberate as a demonstration of the extensive biographical coverage of those who have no other notability than as perpetrators. In addition to the hundreds of entries under Category:Assassins by nationality or Category:Murderers by nationality, some of whom, such as Jan Kubiš, are considered heroic figures, there is also Category:Mass murderers and its sub- Category:Islamist mass murderers, although subject's categorization as an Islamist has not yet been determined. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
In short, no. This deletion hasn't even been open for 24 hours. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
It is pretty stupid having a big afd banner on a prominent article for seven days especially since there is mainly keep or a merge. Close the discussion and reopen the merge discussion on the talk page. 203.118.164.94 ( talk) 22:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
It gives time to improve the article though, if anything new comes to light it will be added. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
There's nothing that an AfD can do to improve this article when nobody wanted to delete it in the first place. It seems more like this AfD was an accident, and instead was meant to be a discussion about merging (see the original user's comments at top about "deleting and redirecting").-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 01:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary section break

The closing decision at WP:Articles for deletion/Andreas Lubitz (3rd nomination) was to merge/redirect, not delete. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge there's plenty of WP:POLICY above. No need to reiterate, but right now there is not enough information to justify, or split attention between two articles, and most readers are going to land on the event article first. Inb4 Breitbart posts an article about how WP wants to delete the page on this guy because they misunderstood the banner at the top of the page. TimothyJosephWood 23:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/redirect: WP:ONEEVENT, WP:PERPETRATOR. This terrorist is not independently notable; his noteworthiness is inextricably bound up in the atrocity he committed. Moreover, splitting content is unwise because it creates duplication and forces readers to go to two pages when really they could just as adequately go to just one. Neutrality talk 00:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/redirect: The incident is notable, not the person (basically what User:Neutrality points out regarding WP policies). I think delete votes should be counted as being in the same camp. If Keep, it shouldn't disqualify future re-evaluation since this is a recent event. -- Makkachin ( talk) 03:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Redirect: Standard practice with articles about crimes and articles about their perpetrators. There's no indication this individual meets the standard for a standalone article. In the unlikely event that more information is uncovered unconnected with the attack in Nice, we can revisit this. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 05:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Obvious merge, WP:BLP1E WP:BIO1E and WP:PERP. ansh 666 05:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
They're stronger because they were central to more than one big event. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
No they weren't. Amedy Coulibaly and Anders Behring Breivik are both also known for one event, the January 2015 Île-de-France attacks and 2011 Norway attacks, respectively. — Lowellian ( reply) 15:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Coulibaly had the Porte de Vincennes siege. Breivik had the trial of Anders Behring Breivik. His manifesto was also widely covered and analysed, making him a notable author. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Which are all related events that are part of or arising from the aforementioned core events. These are not independent events. And the fact that we have all these articles just further goes to show that, when an event is of sufficient magnitude, it is common Wikipedia practice to have multiple articles treating different aspects of an event, such as the subject of this AFD, the perpetrator of an event. — Lowellian ( reply) 03:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What about the other terrorists then? Cexycy ( talk) 16:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Other terrorists? How about Adolf Hitler? Please IP read WP:NOTCENSORED. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • That's what I was getting at. Adolph Hitler has his own article, doesn't he? Doesn't mean he is a decent worthy person Cexycy ( talk) 17:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Even in that case, I think he should only have an article in Wikipedia if he is relevant enough. I don't think he is. For example, in the case of the Tsarnaev brothers, I would also tend to think it should be merged, but I understand the Tsarnaev brothers became relevant for reasons derived from the Boston Bombings and not only for the Boston Bombings. Same with Anders Breivik. I think 84.161.244.187 was trying to imply the perpetrator was nobody previous to the attack, and has not done anything relevant apart from that. Per WP:TOOSOON and other reasons mentioned in this discussion, I think this article shouldn't be deleted, but rather merged. Ron Oliver ( talk) 22:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As upsetting as this person may have become, the article mainly relates to a tragic event which should never be forgotten. As time goes by, more information should become available to make the article of a better in depth standard. Cexycy ( talk) 16:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
That's speculative, is it not? Since the man is dead, he will never face trial, and although some details of the investigation may shed some light on his pathetic life, these would almost certainly be able to be included in the attack article in a paragraph or two, or less, yes? Neutrality talk 19:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
More and more information can be obtained overtime and before you know it, you will have enough information to create a lengthy article. It would be interesting to find out more about what his aim was, considering he wasn't a strict Muslim, according to the information currently known. He may not stand trial but does that really matter? Police caught him in the act and shot him, so he didn't get away with it. Mark David Chapman only killed one person and he has led quite a simplistic life but he has an article. One of Wikipedia's qualities is consistency, so if you get rid of this article, you will have to get rid of articles for other terrorists or certain other killers, which would be pointless. Cexycy ( talk) 22:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – I actually think this is a "Snow Keep". There are plenty of terrorists who have articles. He is among the "worst", if you will (by simple body count alone). I don't see how he is not notable enough for an article. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 19:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The vast majority of opinions so far are against keeping, so, by definition, this is most definitely not a "snow keep", as that would mean that virtually everyone opined for keeping. They did not. LjL ( talk) 23:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I understand that. I am saying that I myself think it's so obvious as to be a "snow keep". Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 01:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The standard for that sort of thing is "Strong Keep". Not saying you have to use it, but it's less likely to confuse. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 23:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary section break

Do you really think this relatively large article can easily be slapped into a section of 2016 Nice attack without deleting anything and yet without making that article unduly centered on the perpetrator? The WP:CRIM you mention does say that it is allowed to create a WP:SPINOUT article of a main article about a perpetrator if this is made necessary by reasons of size (like with most spinouts). Is this not the case here? LjL ( talk) 22:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

*Merge in to 2016 Nice attack, Nothing to say as all what I had to say's already been said. – Davey2010 Talk 18:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: It may be instructive to review the arguments submitted at last month's discussion/vote at Talk:Omar Mateen/Archive 1#Separate article not needed. The closing decision was No consensus to merge. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
That discussion should've closed by an admin but either way consensus here may be to Merge.... – Davey2010 Talk 21:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Usually with articles like this it's more or less a paragraph on the "incident" and that's it and I assumed this was the case ... Turns out I was wrong & should've read the article first, Anyway the article looks to pass GNG so I don't see any valid reason for deletion and plus technically Merges should be discussed on the talkpage so Merging should be out of the question, Anyway keep. – Davey2010 Talk 21:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There is a reason the public is so interested in the terrorist, his migration into France in recent years, etc.: the guy is the deadliest single terrorist in France. He is the Osama Bin Laden of France. Of course he should get his own page, just like Mohamed Atta, the leader of the WTC terrorist group does. Have people forgotten 9/11? XavierItzm ( talk) 00:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Seems like false equivalence, as the names you list were influential leaders of major terror attacks, and this is a (mostly) independent attacker apparently influenced by jihadist propaganda. FallingGravity ( talk) 03:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
84 dead and 303 injured, but some think this is not a major terror attack. Wow. Just wow. XavierItzm ( talk) 08:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm not trying to say it's not a major terror attack; the difference I'm trying to bring up is that the perpetrator here is different from the people you list. FallingGravity ( talk) 14:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
User:XavierItzm, the attack was major, it's just that when an attack is a coordinated, group effort, it can be functional to have separate articles about the leader, and sometimes about the other attackers. Here, there is no functional reason to separate out this bio. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and Merge to the attack on Nice page as per WP:PERPETRATOR The only reason not to do so is length, not a problem at this point with either article. A merge has the great advantage of putting all of the information in a single space; this murderer is notable for nothing else; and separate articles on murderers can lend themselves to use by people inclined to glorify criminals of his ilk, merging keeps the crime he is known for in context. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - It is clear that the delete option is off the table... Whether this should be merged is outside of AfD's purview. A proper merge debate elsewhere after a little time has passed is what the doctor calls for. Carrite ( talk) 14:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - substantial and useful article on a notable topic. Metamagician3000 ( talk) 12:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Changing my iVote. Reason is: today's news makes clear that he had accomplices,which makes a separate article functional. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mohamed_Lahouaiej-Bouhlel&oldid=1091567088"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE