Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furkan Doğan

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 no consensus. Both sides ahve made reasonable arguments, and participation is such that I don't think relisting now would lead to a consensus. Courcelles (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furkan Doğan

[edit]
Furkan Doğan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a notable topic per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:MEMORIAL. Marokwitz (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • His role was getting killed, a sad as that is. He was not a major player in the events. By your rationale, every person that died in the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks should have thier own page because it significantly changed relations between the United States and numerous other nations. Movementarian (Talk) 14:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "Significant international media coverage" is about the whole flotila incident, not Dogan in particular. Chesdovi (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several of the editors who are proposing deletion seem to have overlooked the main point in favor of Doğan's notability, that he was the only American citizen killed in the raid. The geopolitical significance of Doğan's death has been noted by several reliable sources. For example, the Christian Science Monitor:
Though Dogan’s ongoing American ties appear to be limited, the death of a US citizen will make it harder for the Obama administration to side-step a diplomatic confrontation with Israel.[2]
The Dallas Morning News;
The diplomatic drama over Israel's assault widened when one of the dead was identified as 19-year-old Furkan Dogan, who had dual U.S.-Turkish citizenship.[3]
The New York Daily News::
The death of an American citizen in the botched Israeli commando raid put pressure on the Jewish state Thursday to ease its Gaza naval blockade. [4]
This is not a case of WP:MEMORIAL. I don't know Doğan or anyone in his family, and there is no indication that any involved editor here does. As for WP:ONEEVENT, that policy applies to people who play minor roles in significant events. Doğan's role was anything but minor. Kslotte has said that some of the information about Doğan should be in Gaza flotilla raid, and some in Israel – United States relations. This is telling: the fact that Doğan is pertinant to two different Wikipedia articles underlies his significance. Not just the circumstances of his death, but the actions which led to it, his background, and his motivation are all notable and worthy subject matter for an article. Sanguinalis (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do only America's dead count? The relations between Israel and each county whose citizens died will naturally be affected. Both USA and Turkey are allies of Israel. This page should be merged. Dogen is not notable in himself. His killing is. Chesdovi (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi said it well: "Dogen is not notable in himself. His killing is." And the killing is part of Gaza flotilla raid. He wasn't killed on "personal basis". --Kslotte (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vote 'Merge then. No need for separate article. Chesdovi (talk)
The question isn't whose death "counts" but who meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines. They all have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Sanguinalis (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant international media coverage about this shooting incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.95.176.104 (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Significant". I don't think so. This item of news filled the usual space such a thing would do in the press. I am sure the ratio of this item to that of the rest of the news in the papers is not that significant at all. Wiki is not a newspaper, that belongs over at wikinews. Should we have a page about Conservative plans to introduce a one pint drink/drive limit as it made the front page headlines and will be in the news for a short while? Chesdovi (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As the one who contested an earlier PROD to give the article and news sources time to settle, I can't say the article is currently in a state worth remaining separate. Its information should be rolled into the articles mentioned above. If Dogan becomes a propaganda figure like Corrie sometime in the future, then he may warrant his own article. But not until in-depth discussions of his background and life appear in reliable sources. Dragoneer (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The shooting video makes him as important as Rachel Corrie. (though it is still not clear it is him who was shot there in the video Kavas (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
R Corrie is not important. Neither was her death. It was the cult that arose in the months and years after her death. It is not for nothing that M al-Durah page was renamed to Muhammad al-Durrah incident. Many young boys have unfortunatly been killed. It was the footage of this and the subsequent controversy that made it a unique "incident". al-Durrah's shooting without the video is not notable. Even if footage exists of events on the flotilla, it is the whole episode which carries notability, not the shooting of one participant. Chesdovi (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:MEMORIAL. --Pessimist2006 (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All persons killed in the Flotilla Raid meet the standard set out in WP:BIO1E for inclusion, because the psychology and characters of the victims is relevant for historians who are trying to understand what happened on the boat, and why those people were shot. The fact that one of these victims had NO OTHER notable events in his life (including NO extremist affiliations, NO terrorist activities ...) is precisely the sort of thing that is relevant to this task, and the place to convey this information is in a stand-alone article on that person. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 01:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to "understand" why they were shot from the main article. They do not deserve their own page. Do we have a page on each of the 9/11 victims? They have not become iconic in any way. Two of them may retain their pages because wikipedia stupidly seems to allow lists for any person associated with sport or politics. Chesdovi (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of Wikipedia articles about people famous for only one event. A common misconception is that WP:ONEEVENT prohibits all such articles. It does not. The ONEEVENT policy applies only to articles about people who play very minor, peripheral roles in major events. Sanguinalis (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How patriotic from a US citizen. Only yankees count here? Do we have a page on the notorious Asif Muhammad Hanif or Omar Khan Sharif? No. They are covered in the proper place, Mike's Place suicide bombing. His death has not become iconic. Why does he deserve a page? Chesdovi (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi, nobody is saying that Doğan is the only person killed on the Marmara who should have an article. For example, İbrahim Bilgen, a prominent Turkish politician, clearly merits an article. They all have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In the case of Doğan, it is a fact that his American citizenship has drawn significant media attention, whether any of us like that or not. Sanguinalis (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bilgen did something with his life (or had a chance to). What did Dogen achieve? Being shot and living in USA for 2 years? Sure, the media caught onto this dual-citizen fact, but this does not mean he warrants his own page. All the deaths got significant media coverage. It should be merged. Media coverage does not dictate what is included on wiki. Compare: Bloody Sunday (1972) Chesdovi (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2010 (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/Furkan_Doğan&oldid=1069655655"