Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi

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 to Mahmudiyah killings. The arguments for the application of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL are compelling, and I must discount the arguments that do not address these rules or argue that they should not be followed.  Sandstein  06:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi

Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log) previous afd

Fails WP:BIO and is the perfect example of WP:BLP1E. Most of the article already exists in Mahmudiyah killings, so if not deleted, a merge would be fairly simple. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep BLP it certainly is not. She's dead. I didn't see it as applying to her murderers either, as they've now been formally convicted. DGG (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - okay, same policy, different name. How about WP:ONEEVENT? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Redirect to Mahmudiyah killings. This girl is totally non-notable except for the horrible incident. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per ChildofMidnight. While she was alive, she never did anything notable. The article on the murder is more appropriate. Firestorm Talk 05:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect seems like the best option here. 140.177.205.91 (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deja vu... It's already been nominated for deletion a few times and the result was KEEP. How many times do we have to do this? If we delete this we need to delete all the killers pages too. nut-meg (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not quite true. It's never been nominated for deletion at WP:AFD. There were two discussions in the past on the article's talk page about a possible merge, but that's not quite the same. Also, see WP:ONEEVENT and tell me how this article doesn't go against that policy. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment - also, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Feel free to nominate the other articles for deletion. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis is certainly a notable person in a notable event. Wars in general, and this war in particular, are full of similar incidents. But this article will highlight the gravity of the event which is already established as a milestone in the history of this nation's war in Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadik7 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC) — Sadik7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - No one is saying that the event isn't notable; that's why the Mahmudiyah killings article exists. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But the question is if (Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi) is a notable person under WP:Notability_(people) and Sadik7 makes a few points here that confirm she is a notable person. Iqinn (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - What point has he made? He basically stated that the event was notable, which no one disagrees with. You have to ask yourself, if this one event (as tragic as it is) had never occurred, would she be notable on her own? No, she wouldn't. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Yes, considering her age it might be the case that she has become notable just for one event. But that does not violate the policy you are pointing to. I have read WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:ONEEVENT a few times and i see no violation that would justify a merger or deletion. As i am quite new to Wikipedia could you please specifically explain how the policy is being violated instead of just pointing at it. Iqinn (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - the key phrase in WP:ONEEVENT is If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Yes, there are reliable sources about this girl that give information about her, but she's only "notable" for her death. She wasn't considered notable (by Wikipedia's standards) before her death, so therefore, because of one event (her rape and murder) does not make her notable. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - But just above your 'key phrase' WP:ONEEVENT also says; "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." That's the case here. Iqinn (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Reply - being a victim is not a large role in an event. If you continue reading after the "key phrase", it mentions John Hinckley, Jr., who played a significant role in the Reagan assassination attempt. Unfortunately, Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi as a victim, does not play a significant role in the Mahmudiyah killings. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - She does play a significant role as a victim. WP:Notability_(criminal_acts) on victims says: "Also, consistent with WP:BLP1E, articles on persons primarily known as victims may be appropriate for persons with a large role within well-documented historic events. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role..." The Time[[1]], the Guardian[[2]] and many of the other secondary sources have devoted more than significant attention to Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. It's all about her and her role in the event in many of these sources. This significant attention makes her notable. Iqinn (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply She is significant to the event because without her there would be no event. nut-meg (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable, encyclopedic, and well sourced. Badagnani (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mahmudiyah killings, only notable of being a victim of the killings, and the article itself doesn't say much about it. 71.165.197.22 (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The story of Abeer has been followed by many Iraqis, and non-Iraqis (like myself & my wife). It illustrates the brutality and wrong-ness of this war like this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Phuc_Phan_Thi (Vietnamese girl running from a napalm fire) did for Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.22.139 (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC) — 76.193.22.139 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Good point. Just because the American media doesn't care doesn't mean this person isn't notable. In Iraq, she is a symbol of the injustices many civilians have suffered. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wikipedia isn't an "American only" site. From what I understand there has been a lot of coverage on the whole thing and people in the Middle East have followed this closely. She may be notable for one event, but unlike someone like Lacy Peterson, she is intertwined with many other, hugely notable events. nut-meg (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It does Not fail WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E nor WP:ONEEVENT. I agree with the general rule that not all victims of a crime are notable just because they are victims. However these guidelines also clearly say that a separate article for a person may be appropriate: When the event is significant, well-documented and or from historic importance. That is clearly the case here. The persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources is a given fact and Abeer's role in this coverage is substantial. From the beginning of the event until now she is an important figure and for these reasons the article should not be merged or deleted. Iqinn (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's nothing in her article that isn't already in the main article and if it isn't there, it can easily be added. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi had a large role in this historic incident. Many reliable secondary sources included in the article have devoted significant attention specially to her. And because of this she has became notable. The existence of the article does not violate WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E nor WP:ONEEVENT and therefore the article should not be erased. Iqinn (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - there is NOTHING in the article about her specifically. The majority of the article is about the killings themselves. If anything, it provides some more details that should probably be included in that article, too, which just strengthens the argument that it should be deleted or merged. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - That is not true. Everything in the article is about her. It is named after her Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. There is a picture of her ID card. All information in the article are about her and well sourced. I think that brings us just back to the discussion if she is notable. Iqinn (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect - Her page seems quite similar to the Prelude section of Mahmudiyah killings and a merge should maintain, clean up, and streamline all the pertinent information. It was a tragedy, but I agree it technically fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.122.55.134 (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC) — 202.122.55.134 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep -- Claims of WP:BLP1E, in this particular case, give the very unfortunate appearance of an attempt to sanitize the historical record regarding an incident embarrassing to Americans. No boubt this was not the actual intent of the nominator, and those expressing a delete or merge. But it gives this unfortunate appearance nevertheless. This young girl is one of the most noteworthy victims of the entire war. And since spin-doctors played a shameful game to try to claim she was in her twenties, was not a child, this appearance of an attempt at obfuscation leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Geo Swan (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I can see the arguments for "merge", but I'm not convinced we could contain all the information in the article on the killings without violating WP:UNDUE. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - (repeat from above) - there is NOTHING in the article about her specifically. The majority of the article is about the killings themselves. If anything, it provides some more details that should probably be included in that article, too, which just strengthens the argument that it should be deleted or merged. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Why repeat the same again? I have replied to it above. Let's continue the discussion about this there. Your argument does not become stronger by shouting it out many times. Iqinn (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - if you notice, this is a reply to this keep not to the your keep above. Many people don't read all of this and it sometimes helps to reply directly under. I apologize if you think I was shouting, because I wasn't. Finally, you must be reading a different article than I am, because there is nothing in there about that girl that's not directly related to the event. Nothing. The picture of the ID card can easily be put in the other article, as well. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - yes it is another keep but i just think it not good to discuss the same points again under different votes. It could cut off other peoples voices, and now you reply here to something i said above. I am not sure that is helpful. Anyway, back to the discussion. I can assure you i am reading the same article. I have frequently included the link to the article in my remarks. It is the article about Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. All you say here brings us back to the point if she can be notable just for one event, what we have discussed above. And as i have to say it here again. All information in the article are doubtless about her, well sourced and notable. About my shouting remark: Writing a word with all letters in upper-case often indicates shouting. I am sorry if i have miss interpret you in this particular case. Iqinn (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - take away information about the days leading up to the murders and the day of the murder and what do you have in her article? What information do you know about her from the article outside of her rape and murder? That she has a family that they were also brutally killed? Her age? What else? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - basically you say: If you would take out all the information of the one event she is notable for, than there would be nothing notable left in the article. So what? Yes, it would prove that she is just notable for one event. But what is wrong with that? We have discussed this above under the vote of Sadik7. The outcome there so far is: She is notable for her role in this one event and that her article does not fail WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E nor any other policy you have cited. Iqinn (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Finally my feelings: There is hardly anything in my life that was as painful as this discussion. I have been in tears many times and i am in tears now. Iqinn (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As a soldier and a father, reading this article made my blood boil. I honestly felt sick to the stomach. I know that policywise the subject is not notable for anything other than the crime committed against her and that in voting keep, I am voting against that policy. However, I cannot bring myself to vote delete. Someone needs to speak for this poor girl, maybe the wikipedia article can go someway to doing that. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - so basically, you're saying that you agree with the merge arguments and that this article goes against policy, but that you like it so it should stay? Her information would not be lost in a merge. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm fairly sure that what I said was clear. I said keep. Not merge. I don't presume to paraphrase what others say, so would appreciate that people don't paraphrase what I say. No, to make it perfectly clear, I don't like it and that's why I say keep. To be honest the article is not the best wiki article I've read. But I found this an emotional issue and therefore chose to vote in a manner that was possibly against policy. One of the great things about being human is that sometimes we can choose to act in a manner that may not be rational because we feel it is the right thing to do. In this case, I feel that allowing this subject to have its own article helps illustrate the tragedy of this incident and as such feel that an exception should be made to the rule. Additionally, I feel that the policies cited allow room for some flexibility. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW I do not believe your vote is counter-policy. I believe the policy allows some discretion, and that individuals known for one event are not usually considered notable -- but exceptions are allowed, or perhaps necessary, if the event is significant enough, and their role in the event is significant enough. I don't think there is any question that hers is a case that merits the exceptional treatment. So, rest easy. Heroic Richard Jewell would be another instance of WP:BLP1E fans would argue should be deleted on "one event" grounds. Geo Swan (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! For the love of God, for the love of humanity, do not delete this. This girl suffered the worst death imaginable. At least give her the diginity of being remembered!!! Junius ONE (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)— Junius ONE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - as I've already said above, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The question that should always be asked is this: can the sum of encyclopedic knowledge about this subject be covered in another article. In this case, the answer is "yes". There is very little notable information which is not/can not be covered at Mahmudiyah killings. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 03:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We should also take in consideration that it usually takes a long time, often decades, to work through horrific incidents of this magnitude. The war has not even ended and people are still under shock. Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi is already a notable article that is well sourced. Maybe we should give it at least a few years more time. The risk of losing something in a merge now is to high for an event of this importance. Iqinn (talk) 07:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - instead just pointing to wp:oneevent could you please specifically explain how this policy has been violated? We have a few discussion above now to clarify this question. I think it would be helpful if you could help us there. Iqinn (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From wp:oneevent: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." - She covered only in the context of the Mahmudiyah killings, and being dead, is unlikely to gain notability for other things. I hope this clarifies things. NoCal100 (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2009 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abeer_Qassim_Hamza_al-Janabi&oldid=1137534901"