Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Haider

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. WP:ONEEVENT is not applicable here; this is an article on an event, not a person, so the appropriate guideline is WP:EVENT. Many "delete" !voters have cited that the event fails WP:LASTING, but that is only one of several criteria. Ultimately, the various criteria in WP:EVENT are relatively subjective, and with an evenly split !vote count and without one side's arguments being clearly stronger than the other's, this seems to be the appropriate result. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Haider

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The tragic death of a little boy in Afghanistan briefly caught media attention because of the rescue attempt. PRODed, denied. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL apply here - Haider himself, other than for the manner of his passing, is not notable. "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Afghanistan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A sad event, but no evidence of WP:LASTING. WWGB (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many sources including BBC and Deutsche Welle reported the event. See here [[1]] and [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawad Haqbeen (talk • contribs) 01:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:LASTING.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Jawad Haqbeen. Ainty Painty (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of lasting coverage. BilletsMauves^€500 08:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the two guides/policies are cited in error. I'll explain: WP:ONEEVENT is satisfied. The nominator is correct that Haider is not notable outside the event, and that's fine, because this is an event article, not a biography. WP:ONEEVENT basically helps us chose between an article about a person or an event, and they creator of this article followed the correct path. The relevant part of WP:NOTMEMORIAL is correctly mentioned above, wikipedia isn't the place to memorialise friends etc, but in the context of this event making the front page of global news for days, it is unlikely that the editor created this because they are friends or family of the victim. What we should be considering is WP:EVENT. That gives us a few factors to consider, I'll paraphrase them here:

WP:LASTING did the event lead to something else. Not yet. So on this sub-part of the guidance, we are guided to delete
WP:GEOSCOPE did the event get wide geographic coverage. Absolutely yes. On this sub-part of the guidance, we are guided to keep
WP:DEPTH the coverage needs to be deep, not passing mentions. Ideally feature length articles. I saw more than passing mentions, but not in depth coverage, this on this sub-point, it's 50/50 to me.
WP:PERSISTENCE was there just a burst of coverage, or was it ongoing. It was a burst. News seems to have stopped covering this after a few days. But then events in Afghanistan were dramatic this year, and I'm judging this by English sources only. Guidance leans me towards delete, but I'm giving some leniency due to the location.
WP:DIVERSE calls for different sources. There really was a wide variety of sources, this sub points guides us to keep

So the article meets two and fails two (one with caveats) and is 50/50 on one. That's just above 50% as per my perspective. I think we should give it some time to see if the coverage is persistent. From memory backed by searches, this was huge news for a few days. Let's keep it for now. CT55555 (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If we just look at this through the lens of WP:GNG then notability is absolutely there. I fully agree with CT55555's analysis above concerning WP:ONEEVENT. As far as WP:NOTNEWS my knee-jerk reaction was to say that it applies, but if you click on WP:NOTNEWS and actually read the bullet points, which of those applies and makes this worth deletion? The closest I could find is "news reports" but this is not routine news and while yes it is a single event (WP:ONEEVENT) the notability does appear to be enduring given the global coverage of the event. - Aoidh (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2022 (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.