Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arid Uka (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting. Consensus is that WP:CRIME & WP:BLP1E apply here. Content remains behind the redirect for a selective merge into the target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arid Uka

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Arid Uka (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)

According to WP:CRIME: "People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead". Well, that is complete here at 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting. The subject is not notable for anything else and all the coverage referring to him was written within the context of the incident. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect, merge or delete per my first AfD nomination: "This article fails WP:BLP1E. The subject is only notable as the perpetrator of the 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting, and unlikely to become notable for anything else. This article, which was created today, essentially duplicates the content of the article about the shooting, which also makes it a content fork."  Sandstein  17:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really Icewhiz? Anything of "continuing interest" is in the context of the attack. Every single terrorist was radicalized at one point and the news media talks about it; should they have articles too? The article on the shooting already has relevant biographical information and WP:CRIME, the very policy you cite, recommends avoiding these types of articles on the perpetrator.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all terrorists are radicalized, some come from societies that support the action against a perceived external enemy. In this case we have a formerly seemingly peaceful member of a Western society turning against it. As can be seen in a simple google books and scholar check his online radicalization has bcome quite a topic. This is quite separate from the attack itself. His radicalization is quite possibly more notable thanthe attack itself in terms of LASTING coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • His radicalization is a topic of study, widely referenced, due to it being a template for future Islamist radicals. The particulars of the attack are quite distinct from the radicalization vector.Icewhiz (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added a whole bunch of book and journal sources to the article. And no - actually most of them focus on his radicalization - leading off with the Youtube videos and other influences such as music - mentioning the attack itself only in a minor fashion. The actual shooting of US servicemen is "not interesting" - what is interesting is how a subject (in this case someone who was in Germany since he was a one year old baby) - becomes radicalized via online influences - and chooses to attack. This is why he is covered - and this is what is covered. It is quite separate from the attack - which actually in terms of LASTING coverage has less than the radicalization (though the latter does mention the former).Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sources merely demonstrate what I have been saying: everything written about him was in the context of attack. Without the incident, he would have never been mentioned in any sources; that is WP:BLP1E. I understand you consider yourself an "inclusionist" but ignoring policies, which I believe are very easy to comprehend, should not be the solution.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please WP:NPA. As I said before - his radicalization is the subject of most of the coverage and study of him as a subject - not the attack. This is not BPL1E, as his radicalization and attempts to travel to Afghanistan or Iraq - are separate and distinct from his later decision to carry out an attack on German soil. Why is his radicalization covered? Since he was one of the first, survived, and there is ample evidence of the path he took - in any event this has LASTING coverage which is quite separate and distinct from the attack in which he was captured (and DIVERSE to the point that his Islamic-Jihadist music preferences - [1] have been analyzed).Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Describing your editing patterns and how you describe yourself on your userpage is not a personal attack, sorry to say. Not a single source seperated itself from the attack. It was always, basically, "Arid Uka, the shooter at a Frankfurt airport" was radicalized or tried to travel here or there. Every single incident such as this have these types of reports, as you should hopefully know, yet we do not write articles about the suspects/perpetrators because of these policies. Whether the source discussed his radicalization or his travel plans, the descriptor remained the same: "Arid Uka, the shooter" in one incident for which he is known for. The historical significance, as displayed in the sources, was from the attack he carried out, not his musical tastes or travel plans.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This - but ignoring policies, which I believe are very easy to comprehend is a personal attack directed at me. Most perps do not rate a separate article if they were in a single attack and have no other grounds for fame. This particular one - does - as his radicalization is a subject of quite a bit of journal and book coverage by several researchers.Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PERPETRATOR 2. "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." The ongoing coverage Uka's self-radicalization seems to me to make him independent of his crime. See, for example, Lone wolf terrorist: The security official’s worst nightmare, Deutsche Welle, 2016 [2]; Profiles of radicals reveal numerous paths to extremism, Associated Press, [3], more similar in both German and English. Plus SIGCOV of his path to radicalization in an extraordinarily large number of books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revisiting, I ran a gBooks search. See, for example, this: [4] multi-page, deep dive into the process of Uka's radicalization, or this one: [5], another example of how scholars are looking at Uta as a case study, an interesting example of self-radicalization, an unusual amount of in-depth coverage for a terrorist. And there is this [6] (in final paragraph), assertion that he has been influential because his story has attracted young people to violent jihad. Of course, he is young, healthy, alive and in a few years he will be free man living in Kosovo. But the point is that is is already the topic of a scholarly conversation on Islamist self-radicalization that appears to make him a notable topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 03:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it is for WP:GNG ... --RAN (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) you do realize BLP and being something Wikipedia is not trumps GNG, right? A merge or redirect is rationale if you follow policy. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person according to BLP and WP:CRIME.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pharaoh of the Wizards, just curious, did you consider WP:BLP1E at all and are you aware WP:CRIME -- the very policy you cite -- advices covering the incident, not the perp, when his or her notability stems from one event?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notability stems from the documented radicalization in the months prior to the attack, not the attack.Icewhiz (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize you aren't Pharaoh and the "documentation" is a result of the attack, correct?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you respond to multiple comments here (BLUDGEON?) repeating arguments raised above, expect a response. The attack is what generated interest in this person initially, however most of the coverage (including in journal papers) is of his radicalization path which is distinct and prior to the attack.Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz I'm pinging you in case there is anything you want to selectively merge. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Delete/Merge to the shooting article: Textbook case of WP:CRIME: 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. This proposition can be very easily checked. Consider the version right now. Look at the "Background" section and check the citations. Leave aside this source from "Anchor Publishing", which is a self-publishing outlet, and thus source shouldn't be in the article at all. Every single one of the sources cited in this section is in connection with the shooting. Here, I'll list out some of the headlines of the articles for you (translated if in German):
    • The Frankfurt pistol shooter and his contacts
    • Frankfurt Attack Mystifies Suspect’s Family
    • Airport assassin Lifetime for Arid Uka
    • Airport assassin Arid Uka condemned -- Maximum penalty for US soldier murder

Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 01:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting. The story of his radicalization would be of little interest to anyone other than his closest family and friends if he had not murdered two people. Any such content belongs in the article about the murders. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I agree with IceWhiz that it clearly meets WP:CRIMINAL. Article contains sourced bio information both pre/post attack should ideally not be merged. Subject's Islamic radicalization is of sufficient newsworthiness that coverage will follow. Furthermore, keep as per WP:PERPETRATOR 2. "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." The ongoing coverage Uka's self-radicalization seems to me to make him independent of his crime. There are several examples of this matter. See, for example, Lone wolf terrorist: The security official’s worst nightmare, Deutsche Welle, 2016 [7]; Profiles of radicals reveal numerous paths to extremism, Associated Press, [8], more similar in both German and English. Plus SIGCOV of his path to radicalization in an extraordinarily large number of books. The article also mentions that he is an early example of "lone wolf terrorism" and gives a number of sources to support this matter. Lone wolf terrorism is on the rise and is a particularly pernicious form of terrorism that security experts/forces are finding hard to combat. So the historical importance of Arid Uka is such that one would expect historians and other scholars to cite this individual. In addition, the article mentions: "The shooting was the first terror attack by a Salafist Jihadist in Germany". So again, So the historical importance of Arid Uka is such that one would expect historians and other scholars to cite this individual. Due to the growing friction between the growing numbers of right-wing nationalists in Europe and a growing population of European Muslims and the continued rise of Islamic fundamentalism, the historical importance of Arid Uka will only rise. A majority of Muslims are also resistant to assimilating into European cultures and wish to retain much of their own cultures and this is further causing a clash of cultures. Terrorism is often a form of fourth-generation warfare. The militant Islamacists vs. Western democracies conflict shows signs of accelerating judging from the increased pace of Muslim attacks in Europe. From a fourth-generation warfare military history perspective, one can argue that this article will grow in importance. Knox490 (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:CRYSTAL, about not predicting his hypothetical future notability as a basis for retaining an article on just one more stooge in the terror wave.These articles are written by editors who, were the subject Hispanic, would be writing up the slim bios of every Mexican/Central American murderer in the US under the category of Hispanic immigrant killers, as part of some WASP hysteria about a presumed Catholic/Latino threat to the USA. Nishidani (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Most terrorists do not appear in multiple journal articles, in fact many are not named in such articles at all - with non-news sources limited to "terror encyclopedias" and other books that cover every terror event in some scope. this particular individual has 170+ google scholar hits - Google Scholar for Arid Uka (170 after jumping ahead to last and verifying he's in the article preview text) - some of which are passing (as a lone wolf example) some are quite in-depth regarding his radicalization. Uka has become a bona fida illustrative example in academic circles.Icewhiz (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that his fundamentalist islamisation is widely cited does not constitute grounds for a biography when that fact already exists in the Frankfort airport article (unless the point is to create several thousand articles on people who have become Islamic fundamentalists, and a couple of million on evangelical fundamentalists, since 57% of the US population thinks federal law should be based on Biblical principles,-70% approving state executions which in huge disproportion affect Afro-Americans far more than Caucasian murderers- just as Islamic fundamentalists think the law in Arab countries should derive from the Sharia). This hysteric focus on Islamic radicalization reflects the toxic news cycle's bias, rather than, encyclopedically, throwing light on the nature of such phenomena.Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When the subject is treated separately, it does. As for media focus on Islamists vs. evangelical fundamentalists - we follow the coverage when assessing notability for WP:GNG, WP:SOAP of possible media/scholarly bias regarding lack of coverage of attackers who shout "Jesus Christ" prior to carrying out their attack is a matter to be taken up with the media/scholars, not here.Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PERP #2 Agathoclea (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting. No real coverage of him exists independent of this one event, and it should not be confusing for readers to be redirected to the shooting article or to read about the shooter’s motives there. Although multiple reliable sources were added to the article page showing Uka is an example of “lone wolf terrorism”, they don’t seem to be about him specifically and only list him out as one of multiple examples. That coverage isn’t specific to him and we don’t need separate articles on every single person motivated by Islamic fundamentalism to do something. Lone wolf terrorism already exists, already mentions this shooting as one of several, and already redirects to the shooting page. The shooter’s motives are not so unique to give this shooter lasting notability on his own. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2017 (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/Arid_Uka_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1068824600"