Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel

Add links
Source: 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 (edit | 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 perpetrator is subject to have committed a mass killing which is noteworthy, per CRM#2. Jim Carter 16:43, 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 exactlyDave8899 (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]
  • Keep - per CRM#2. Very unusual way this attack was carried out etc.BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not particularly unusual: see Vehicular assault as a terrorist tactic. Neutralitytalk 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

  • Keep. It was the deadliest attack in France committed by a single perpetrator. Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel is obviously notable as well as the infamous mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik.Russian Rocky (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • Keep for now - I suggest that we keep the article and see if it becomes any more substantial, and if not merge it with the main attack article. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 18:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: If the only thing he is famous for is the Nice attack, then just keep it in the Nice attack article. FabulousFerd (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge per WP:PERPETRATOR. 70.51.84.138 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Purge: Bastard killed my friend, I don't want to read about him. --Merzouky (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perpetrator is subject to have committed the worst mass killing in Europe which is noteworthy. APayan (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:TOOSOON and WP:PERPETRATOR. Once enough info is obtained about the perpetrator (e.g early life and other stuff), then it would be applicable to create an article about the killer. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. No need to have a separate article. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 19:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 'attack' page as per WP:PERPETRATOR, any estimation of how much biog info will materialise is pure guess work, WP:TOOSOON applies and as a purely practical matter we know it will make keeping the 'attack' and 'perp.' articles harder to patrol and keep aligned. Pincrete (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Extensive media coverage. 46.200.26.232 (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Unless something changes radically, there seems to be no content here that would not already merit inclusion in the attack article. So I cannot see the point of a separate article. Mathsci (talk) 19:41, 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]
  • Merge The subject of this article is not notable outside of the Nice attack, and the Nice attack article has not reached the 50KB size to justify a WP:SIZESPLIT. Waters.Justin (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Nice attack article is currently 28 KB.[2] If we expect the article to grow twice the size then a size split may be justified. WP:SIZESPLIT Waters.Justin (talk) 20:08, 15 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

  • Snow keep and continue the merge discussion on the talk page. 203.118.164.94 (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't "snow" anything since there are conflicting opinions. Kylo Ren (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now) Sure, the article currently may not contain much more information than in the article for the Nice attacks, but it's only been a short while since the attack. Perpetrators of major terrorist attacks will often gather more media coverage for a long time after the attack, so trying to judge somebody's potential future notability only a day after the attack seems far from productive. If given time and the article still doesn't have any information that warrants an independent article, it wouldn't be hard to just merge it back. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Did one notable thing, then immediately died. Summarize in article about the notable thing, do not merge everything. If precedence means anything (and it shouldn't), follow that set by Andreas Lubitz. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. Neutralitytalk 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. ansh666 05:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (and Redirect) into the 2016 Nice attack article. Only notable for committing the attack. - Csurla (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think people will be looking for information about him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect with 2016 Nice attack as per WP:ONE EVENT: "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." Irrelevant person prior to the terrorist attack. Vs6507 11:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The attack is of sufficient magnitude that the perpetrator is clearly notable on his own, per clear prior precedent of other perpetrators like Amedy Coulibaly and Anders Behring Breivik. In fact, the case for this article is even stronger than for those aforementioned perpetrators, since this attacker was responsible for even more deaths. —Lowellian (reply) 13:29, 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? Neutralitytalk 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]
  • Merge per WP:PERPETRATOR. The attack is relevant. The murderer is not. Ron Oliver (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, for the same reasons as many other editors' state in postings above. Ref (chew)(do) 21:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable. Anders Behring Breivik has a page. --Franz Brod (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't this comparison rather inapposite? Breivik survived his crime and was put on trial; more than half of his biographical article covers his criminal trial, a civil trial, and his prison life. Breivik also left a detailed manifesto, and discussion of it takes up significant space in his article. Bouhlel, by contrast, is dead; there will be no trial to cover. And he left no manifesto or other writing, as Breivik did. Neutralitytalk 22:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as WP:PERPETRATOR does allow for WP:SPINOUT articles for reasons of space, and this article is pretty long and comprehensive to the point that it would be unduly inappropriate to just paste it all back into 2016 Nice attack. LjL (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This tragic event was one of the most important events to occur this year and a page that covers the perpetrator's information in-depth is definitely necessary. Hammill Ten (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – At the moment, both this article and the 2016 Nice attack article are relatively small. There's also a lot of overlap, so little would be lost. FallingGravity (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

  • Merge as per WP:PERPETRATOR PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep No reason to delete. Reaper7 (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The content in the Bouhlel's article can fit into a section of the 2016 Nice attack article. In response to rationales above, we are not deleting valuable information via a merge, the attacker has no significance outside of the event, and merging just changes the location. Also suggesting a merge based on comments above and WP:CRIM. Upjav (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • Keep (for now) – If the media keeps on giving this issue more coverage such as the Orlando shooting or the Paris attacks, then this article should be kept. If the perpetrator had other suspicions such as terrorist connections or previous threats in the vicinity then I think it should be kept to provide thorough information about his motives. De88 (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Some reports say that he was a suicide trying to pass off his death as a so-called Islamic attack. This kind of disguised suicide is not unusual in Western societies, but it does not have much of a media presence in Muslim cultures or with regard to Muslim people. If these reports prove to be true, it would also be relevant to discussions on terrorism elsewhere. Definitely keep for now until we know more. I would argue, keep period. Pufferfyshe (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - He is only known for the attack, absolutely everything about him that is notable is related to the event, and so should be found on the event page. Mattximus (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, it's probable that the media will produce significant coverage for the individual similarly to the individuals behind the 2016 Orlando shooting and the 2015 Paris attacks, as mentioned already by several above. If this is not the case (which I doubt but I'm not going to WP:CBALL here) then by all means a merger would be acceptable. Davidbuddy9Talk 02:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Not know outside the attack in Nice. Just combine the information. Reb1981 (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article is quite large.--Alcoaariel (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 18. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 09:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge in to 2016 Nice attack, Nothing to say as all what I had to say's already been said. –Davey2010Talk 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.... –Davey2010Talk 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. –Davey2010Talk 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mohamed_Lahouaiej-Bouhlel&oldid=1091567088"