Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 6

This is essentially WP:BLP1E article. The Afd focused on using the same kind of kind of references that were repeating information from affliate news as quantity over quality argument but no actual stubstance beyond the initial event. Lastly, some reason it was decided a non-admin should close which I found odd scope_creep^Talk 12:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were two AFD discussions, both non-admin closed.
- Project:Articles for deletion/Shani Louk was closed (after a full week) with a move to Kidnapping of Shani Louk, which was done. Looking at that and the talkpage discussion that the closer pointed to, that consensus seemed clear. The closer also said that this could be re-nominated as that subject, which could then focus on how the event of the kidnapping (or death, per a now outstanding new move discussion) may or may not merit an article. This seems like a good close, and I think that we should endorse it.
- Project:Articles for deletion/Kidnapping of Shani Louk was that very re-nomination, 10 days later. No-one opined delete. I won't fault the closure on that. But it ran for just a few hours overnight in the timezones of many editors who might be able to comment in this subject area. I think that it should have been left for the full 24-hour cycle. If there were opposing points to be made by people who aren't awake from 22UTC to 4UTC, they were excluded. Project:Non-admin closure#Articles for deletion as well as Project:Snowball clause warn against this sort of thing for good reason.
Uncle G (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The second afd ran from 22UTC on October 30 to 4UTC on November 4. That's still an early closure, but it's a great deal longer than a few hours. —Cryptic 14:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gah! I misread the timestamp. In which case, I do not fault the closure at all, and since the rationale here is about sources for 1 event, and the article is about 1 event, the only use of administrator tools in the future that I foresee is moving over redirects in the inevitable arguments about whether this is "killing", "kidnapping", "murder", or "death", given the page moves already and the outstanding requested move discussion. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As I noted in the most recent AfD discussion, and will repeat now, this is not a WP:BLP1E because it is not a biography. After all, for people covered in the context of one event, our guidelines are explicit that [t]he general rule is to cover the event. This article does just that. Arguments in the discussion were not solely focused on affiliate news, as the review requestor incorrectly claims; in fact, people (including me) had made explicit reference to detailed and in-depth follow-up coverage in international papers of record, such as The Times. That’s a far cry from no actual substance beyond the initial event. Perhaps ideally this would have been left for seven days, but the outcome would not have changed—the arguments in support of keeping were so much stronger than those in favor of deletion (and so much more convincing to the participants—not a single participant was persuaded by the nominator’s argument for deletion) that I don’t think that we should reopen this for the sake of bureaucracy. In other words, the close accurately reflected the strong and clear consensus that was ascertained in that discussion, and I don’t see that as possibly changing upon review or reopening, so I endorse the close and see no need to re-open it. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been moved since then. scope_creep^Talk 15:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the closer of the first discussion... no, this doesn't qualify for BLP1E. There are tons of articles about killings of non-notable people, and that's exactly how we are supposed to cover them: as articles on the event, not on the person. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made the nomination in the earlier AfD. At that time I think it was a quintessential BLP1E, but I agree with Scope Creep that there has been some, uh, scope creep in terms of what exemptions we're willing to make to that policy. In that earlier AfD, the arguments for upmerging, including the WP:PAGEDECIDE argument independent of the BLP1E one, were solidly grounded in guidance, whereas the keep arguments (many from newcomers) largely boiled down to either WP:ILIKEIT or to "meets GNG" (reflecting a misunderstanding that GNG is the only applicable standard at AfD). It could have been closed differently, but it's water under the bridge at this point.
Which brings us to the more recent AfD. Even with the additional coverage after her death was confirmed (which really adds basically one sentence if we're writing in proper summary style), I think there is an intelligent WP:PAGEDECIDE argument to be made for upmerging, and I'm not fully convinced the encyclopedia is better off with the article. But no one made the upmerging argument, so from a deletion review perspective, I endorse the close. My advice to those who continue to find the article unsuitable would be to make a merge nomination instead. As broken as the merge process is, it'd at least reduce some of the GNG misunderstanding and focus the discussion around WP:PAGEDECIDE. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is 270+ folk killed there and for some reason we have decided to keep this one person, even though the news coverage is no different from any other person who was killed there. There was no examination of the quality of the references, in recognition of the affiliate nature of news. The amount of duplicate news moving from agency to agency is the whole argument. The duplication of references from those affiliate (wires) news only took place because she was a European, German, a women and a pretty one at that. It is classic WP:BIAS. It was classic pile-on with no consideration of form. I remember duding Operation Cast Lead in 2008, when the exactly the same process occurred. There is blonde girl who was killed about 14 along with her friend who was Palestinian, who was a similar age and young lady got all the news, where the Palestinain was invisible. This is one issue. The second issue, is the source weren't even looked it. It just assumption that were as there was quantity of them, therefore it must quality, it must be good, like its 2008. The examination of the aflliiate wired news didn't take place. The same kind of reported information, was repeated multiple times in multiple countries, meaning lots of duplication. Several editors tried to bring that to folks attention, it might have well been invisible. scope_creep^Talk 16:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the question is twofold, then:
  - Is this remediable through the administrator deletion tool? Or through ordinary editors with all of the editing tools that ordinary editors have? All of the ordinary editors opining redirection in the first discussion should surely be expected to put their editing tool usages where their mouths are, to mangle a metaphor.
  - Why wasn't any Look, the sources are actually all the same, copying each other? argument raised at Project:Articles for deletion/Kidnapping of Shani Louk? Or even at Project:Articles for deletion/Shani Louk?
    A proper source analysis showing how they were related could have been a great benefit to the discussion. But it wasn't done in two AFD discussions. Not even you made did a detailed source analysis to prove that point at Special:Diff/1180517064/1180541464.
- Uncle G (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I was nominator on the more recent AfD, but the consensus there is crystal clear and was quite obviously not going to change by waiting to let an admin close it after seven days. @Scope creep: the purpose of deletion review is to look at the closure, not rehash the AfD itself. VQuakr (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per the simple fact that this isn't a biography. There also isn't consensus to delete in either AfD. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 01:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(involved, primary author) Comment. The first AfD can't be challenged anymore (mootness), only the second one can.—Alalch E. 01:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - no notable "Death of X" article can ever possibly be a WP:BLP1E because Requirement #3 of BLP1E is If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. If the event is notable, it's significant, and an individual obviously has a "substantial role" in their own death. There is no problem with NACs of AFDs by experienced editors. As for "some reason we have decided to keep this one person," she's not the only one we have an article about: Noa Argamani, Vivian Silver, and though she was not kidnapped, a similar article is Inbal Rabin-Lieberman. It's not just this time around, either, there are other notable kidnapping victims, such as Gilad Shalit. But in any event, there's a really obvious reason why Shani Louk has received more RS coverage than other kidnapping victims (the news coverage is definitely quite different from other victims), and that's because her half-naked body was paraded around in the back of a pick up truck in Gaza City, videos of which went viral. "For some reason"? I think we all know the reason. Levivich (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Very know murder case. The article is not about Shani herself, but about the crime, and the fact what she was filmed paraded dead, clip that broadcasted as some pride video. Corvus (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6 November 2023

Kidnapping of Shani Louk