Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wadi Dawan attack

Add links
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 to Terrorism in Yemen. Star Mississippi 00:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wadi Dawan attack[edit]

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

Wadi Dawan attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the coverage is from the time of the event in January 2008. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorism in Yemen, there was some coverage the next year from Belgian publications over the perpetrators getting the death penalty for terrorism, but I don't think it's in depth enough to justify an individual article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This event article meets the requirements of the GNG, EVENT, and LASTING by plenty of coverage at the time of the event and since. For more recent coverage, see "Voice of a Voyage: Rediscovering the World During a Ten-year Circumnavigation" by Doann Houghton-Alico, from 2016, in Google Books. Not sure why this has been nominated for deletion. The research leaves to be desired. Furthermore, the merger suggested above my opinion would create a situation of undue and should also be rejected. Wadi Dawan attack is a proper SPINOFF. gidonb (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "plenty of coverage at the time of the event" does not meet WP:EFFECT and WP:NOTNEWS applies. You've found 1 source, are there others? LibStar (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement is untrue. I found plenty of sourcing AND ESTABLISHED LASTING WITH AN RS! This nomination is a clear BEFORE failure! There needn't be more sources than one since 2008 because the event was less than 20 years ago. However, there are two. It also appears in The Last Good Man: A Novel, page 33, A.J. Kazinski, from 2012. Libstar, you frequently claim fact-free that events are not LASTING. Why would you do that? gidonb (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of sourcing? you've mentioned a mere 2. If this nomination is a failure it would be a unanimous keep which it isn't. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please supply actual text from the 2 books you cite? I'm interested in what it says. Thanks LibStar (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There needn't be more sources than one since 2008 because the event was less than 20 years ago." You're now inventing rules for notability. LibStar (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of contemporaneous sourcing for the GNG. Really big numbers. Enough to visit the articles in the other wikis to see that. In addition, there is more than sufficient sourcing from books to prove that this has a LASTING impact just as well. Therefore meets the GNG and EVENT. gidonb (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please supply actual text from the 2 books you cite? LibStar (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you look in Google Books and withdraw this nomination after you do? You should have done a BEFORE upfront! gidonb (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please supply actual text from the 2 books you cite? Why can't you provide this? LibStar (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something you're hiding by not producing text as requested? LibStar (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I try to lead a life also beyond your failed nominations. Some 10 books write about this incident beyond the contemporaneous coverage that is also extensive. I gave 5 examples. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the article meets the GNG based on contemporaneous coverage and that all your fact-free nominations of terrorist incidents under your assumption that these get forgotten – this isn't so and LASTING is met. Terrorism is a real problem and these events get revisited time and again. gidonb (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS trumps GNG. Otherwise we'll be creating articles for every event reported in the media. There was a factory fire near my home, should I create an article because it meets GNG? LibStar (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or a few weeks ago, Australia's east coast received a lot of rainfall, well reported in all the media, but why isn't there a Wikipedia article for it? LibStar (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTNEWS DOES not apply to terrorist events with a LASTING IMPACT. You are wasting the valuable time of the community by making baseless claims, and then arguing under the opinion of everyone who disagrees with you, after it is found that haven't done a thorough BEFORE. You have already written eight times under my opinion while you should have invested time before nominating instead of wasting mine. gidonb (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least one other editor (PARAKANYAA) doesn't agree with you. Everyone's time on WP is voluntary, how you choose to spend yours is your choice. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Which page number of "Voice of a Voyage: Rediscovering the World During a Ten-year Circumnavigation" are you referring to? it's a 276 page book. so page number would be helpful. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's on two pages in the book. There are more book mentions. About five, not counting other languages than English. gidonb (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two pages in the middle of Chapter 9. Google Books does not provide page numbers for this particular book.
Which pages? LibStar (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I finally found the text: About a month prior to that in Wadi Dawan,...two Belgian tourists and their driver were killed by a group of insurgents. A 1 line mention in a 276 page book is hardly WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned. Coverage continued on the next page. gidonb (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also here:

  • Doctrine of Terror: Saudi Salafi Religion - Page 214, Mahboob Illahi, 2018
  • Yemen Mineral, Mining Sector Investment and Business Guide - Page 189, IBP USA, 2013
  • Yemen: Dancing on the Heads of Snakes, Page 230, Victoria Clark, 2010

Hang on, closer to ten. This nomination ranks among the more failed ones. gidonb (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked p.230 of "Yemen: Dancing on the Heads of Snakes". the slaughter of the two Belgian women tourists and their driver in the Wadi Doan A 1 sentence mention in a 300+ page book is not WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly in Doctrine of Terror: Saudi Salafi Religion - Page 214, Al-Qaeda militants opened fire on a convoy of tourists in Hadharmauy, killing two Belgian tourists... A 1 sentence mention in a 324 page book is not WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant. The SIGCOV is contemporaneous. The article meets the GNG based on contemporaneous SIGCOV in RS. However, since it is an event, that's insufficient for keeping. In addition, there also needs to be interest in this event over time since for LASTING. Lasting has also been established. Instead of arguing more, this failed nomination should be withdrawn. gidonb (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, and I think your statement is contrary to NEVENT (which is somewhat confusing but still). There isn't enough to keep this as standalone.
I'm of the opinion that terrorist attacks are almost always notable as part of a pattern, and should be mentioned somewhere: a merge accomplishes this. To warrant its own article there must be enough coverage on something to write besides "it happened, people got arrested". None of the later sources you provided are enough. IMO, the most important factors are a mix of both quality and distance of coverage in writing these kinds of an articles. A single high quality retrospective on an event would do a whole lot more for convincing me to vote keep than say, continuing legal developments. This isn't even that, these are just one or two sentences! Not sigcov. I also doubt this would pass on "effect" grounds. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, PARAKANYAA LibStar (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there was lots of coverage of this event when it happened. I never went in to that. Only discussed coverage since. gidonb (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NOTNEWS, WP is not News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style A spike in coverage at the time of the event is not a good indicator of notability. For example, there was a factory fire near my home covered in the media, should I create an article because it meets GNG? LibStar (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also irrelevant. This is an event with global and lasting coverage. gidonb (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lasting coverage which is not indepth as pointed out by PARAKANYAA. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Yemen Mineral, Mining Sector Investment and Business Guide - Page 189, Belgian tourists and their Yemeni driver were killed in Hadhramout governorate in eastern Yemen. Again, another 1 sentence mention (in a book of 260 pages) that isn't WP:SIGCOV. None of these 1 sentence mentions in the 4 additional sources given establish WP:EFFECT, An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the other keep !votes for this "failed nomination"? 2 editors have agreed with me about the lack of WP:SIGCOV for the additional sources. LibStar (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Terrorism in Yemen: Strongly unconvinced by the arguments for keeping the article with only passing mentions that the event happened. As part of the broader topic of Terrorism in Yemen this may warrant a mention or brief paragraph, but I don't see the lasting impact from this event that establishes notoriety for an article. Shazback (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2024 (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/Wadi_Dawan_attack&oldid=1224062041"