Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Sanoussi

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 delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Sanoussi

Contested prod on the basis that more than one rape ! However per WP:ONEEVENT which is policy. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. We have an article on the event for which this person is notable - ie Sydney gang rapes and he is listed in that article. I think listing there is sufficient with a paragraph or so of mention and this separate article is unwarranted. More than one rape may have been involved but I think for the purpose of scope the gang rapes in Sydney as covered by the article are one event. Matilda ^talk 00:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they similarly fall within WP:ONEEVENT for the same series of attacks already covered by an article on that event:

The following articles have not had proposed deletion contested but are listed here in case that is the case so that they are part of the same discussion:

--Matilda ^talk 00:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once this discussion is concluded I propose that these articles be salted - assuming the discussion agrees that deletion is appropriate. --Matilda ^talk 01:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Matilda ^talk 00:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Sting Buzz Me... 01:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and strong delete for "H". Perhaps some of the Mohammed Skaf content could be used in the Bilal Skaf article. The Sydney gang rapes article is sufficient to cover the events in question. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Mattinbgn. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any sourceable info into Sydney gang rapes, if the allegations on the AfD talk page turn out to be true. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does look like a classic case of WP:ONEEVENT. RayAYang (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, this is a textbook application of WP:ONEEVENT. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
But no objection to a redirect if judged appropriate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all, and confirm the deletion of the prodded articles. See WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It feels wrong to be deleting information on such a serious event, but I've had a look at the articles (both deleted and yet to be deleted), and it doesn't look like there'll be much information lost (see this AFD's talk page for the ones that haven't been deleted). Normally I'd suggest a merge rather than a deletion, but the articles are pretty mediocre and are about living people. Without violating the GFDL, it is probably worthwhile mentioning H's mental impairment in the main article. Andjam (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't think this is a classic textbook WP:ONEEVENT situation. These people are the subject of multiple reporting over a long period of time. As the consensus appears to be that WP:ONEEVENT applies, the proper course is a redirect or a merge under that policy. I also oppose salting as that only applies where there is persistent page recreation after deletion. If somebody can find more indepth information on these people to justify a proper biography, then they should be allowed to do so. Assize (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of the level of reporting, there is still only one event (the series of rapes) in question and the only notable information worth including in a biographical article is their crimes. The article on the event covers that in detail so there is no need at all for an biographical article. Most criminals, even rapists and murderers, are not notable enough for inclusion in a biographical article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk

Putting aside the issue of treating several crimes as one event, there are still several events. The actual crimes, the trial event, the sentencing event, the appeals event, the rehashing of the events in the media with it being compared to other similar crimes. Surely WP:ONEEVENT is only really targeted at something like a shop stealing offence which gets a 1 minute mention and is never heard of again. Assize (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would fail WP:N directly. ONEEVENT is specifically for 'biographies' like this, where someone made the news for an event, (I believe a series of proximate, related crimes and their associated consequences count as one event) and has nothing else about their lives that would merit encyclopedic inclusion. Unless the media coverage of each individual rises to the level of Central Park Jogger, I don't see the need or justification for an article on them. Jclemens (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the extended media interest in the Central Park Jogger made it more than a single event, which brought it outside ONEEVENT. Exactly what I am arguing. Assize (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed. However, I'd point out to you that if you look at Central Park Jogger, roughly half the sources documented in the article are from 10+ years after the event. That's a pretty high bar to meet, even for an horrific crime that shocks a city. Oh, and four of the five articles on the convicted rapists have since been deleted, so that's not a particularly favourable precedent, either. Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the deletion of other articles doesn't cause precidents, particularly as they were PROD-ed. Central Park Jogger is still only one event because "crimes and their associated consequences count as one event". So how does it really fall outside of ONEEVENT except for the sustained media coverage? Assize (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 'crimes and their associated consequences count as one event'. If that is the case then why does Ivan Milat qualify for an article? WWGB (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - firstly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a rationale for keeping. Secondly the Central Park Jogger now redirects to the victim's name. She has written a book about the attack. That probably (I am not evaluating that article here) gives her notability sufficient to meet the WP:Bio threshhold of notability. It may be that the article would be better about the event than the person but there seems no article about the event and it was certainly notable enough making world wide news repeatedly. In this case we have an article about the event and are proposing to delete the addional articles about the attackers. The rationale is that there is nothing additionally notable about the attackers. When it comes to Ivan Milat, I would say that there could be justification for saying that the article about the Backpacker murders is sufficient, but I think the rationale for keeping the article on Milat is similar to the rationale for keeping the article on Bilal Skaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the leader of the attackers in this case. Bilal Skaf's article was a contested prod and has not been nominated for deletion here. There is a distinction being made here between Bilal Skaf and the other attackers in this event as to notability. --Matilda ^talk 06:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All are notable under WP:N for secondary coverage. What you are saying under ONEEVENT is that they shouldn't be covered even though they are notable. The distinction can't be writing a book, because that is self-promotion under WP:BIO. It can't be because he was the ring leader because Ivan Milat wasn't. It can only be the extensive media coverage over a long period of time. A criminal who is in headlines for a day or two is excluded under ONEEVENT, not "infamous" criminals who come up all the time. Assize (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would really help if you read some policies. I have quoted from ONEEVENT in my nomination Cover the event, not the person. and we have an article on the event and these people are not notable for anything other than this crime.
We aren't actually debating the other articles here - I do not think they are a useful precedent... but to respond to your point - writing a book is not merely self-promotion under WP:Bio - there is a distinction between self-publishing and other sorts of publishing. The attack in Central Park was very notable and received extensive world-wide coverage. i would query whether the article should be about the event or the person but it seems to have evolved to be about the victim because she is notable for naming herself as the victim.
I note that at least one of the victims of a similar event ( Ashfield gang rapes ) ~~that is the subject of this AfD~~ is similarly notable - eg per this SMH article of 2006 . We discussed whether or not we would have an article on her at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 19#Brave Tegan Wagner and decided against it.
Bilal Skaf's name is infamous and he went to court on the subject - see SMH of June 20, 2008 - ie a recent article still on the subject of his notoriety.
Milat's name is similarly infamous - see for example this UK TV program . He is also alleged to be linked to other crimes - eg this SMH article of 2006 alleges Marsden who got Ivan Milat off a rape charge in the 1970s, using the legal system's medieval treatment of rape victims to leave Milat free to resume his favoured pastime In other words there are assertions the backpacker murders are not the only crimes Milat is guilty of. --Matilda ^talk 22:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could say that it would be helpful if you read the policies as well, but that wouldn't be relevant to this discussion or helpful. Perhaps you might wish to look at note 5 on WP:BIO about "Autobiography". Also, separate biographies in ONEEVENT "might not be warranted", the keyword being might so separate biographies are permissible. My argument is that ONEEVENT does not exclude people who are "infamous". We seem to agree on that. But why are they "infamous" or "notorious" to use your own words. Because they continue to receive coverage in the media or have became the subject of an independent book, which is an objective standard and which Wikipedia strives to be. It is not because Wikipedians consider the crime as unimportant. Can you explain what objective criteria have been used to decide that Ivan Milat is "infamous" but this person is not? Assize (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change people's minds on this, you'd be better off adding RS information not involving the crime to subjects' respective articles. Absent any such coverage, ONEEVENT clearly applies in my mind, and I find your nuanced interpretations of ONEEVENT unpersuasive. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my argument was as nuanced as a sledgehammer ie. ONEEVENT doesn't apply because they aren't "low profile" as they have receive sustained media coverage. Remember, I'm not arguing keep. The "nuanced" arguments trying to justify why multiple rapes, subsequent consequences of the crimes, and comparisons to other similar crimes are all considered "one event", when they plainly are not, is simply illogical and laden with NPOV. There is no point updating an article that will be deleted or redirected at the end of this AfD, so let's move on. Assize (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL warning some content has recently been moved from the biographical articles to the event article in a cut and paste manner. This may mean we can only redirect rather than delete outright. Andjam (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I disagree that the addition of one or at most two sentences from each of 4 articles to the main article breaches GFDL - see [1] --Matilda ^talk 20:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. There's no useful information about him that hasn't been included in the main article about his gang. The references don't highlight the actions of Sanoussi above the gang as a whole, because he hasn't done anything notable away from his gang as a whole. The references only mention Sanoussi's name in passing, as a member of the gang. It should be salted because this gang member will be in gaol for decades, thus is unlikely to ever achieve notability.--Lester 04:14, 23 July 2008 (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.