Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Hamel

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 keep. The consensus seems to rest with the notion that the subject's martyrdom, and the nature of that martyrdom and the surrounding circumstances, establishes the requisite notability. However, there is also a logical concern of whether it is simply too soon to tell if the perceived notability will be lasting. Therefore, this close is made without prejudice towards another AFD being opened in 6 months time, if any reasonable concerns still stand. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Hamel

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

Jacques Hamel (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)

While the events surrounding this priest's death are tragic, per

• Merge. Subject was not notable prior to death, and per
  WP:SINGLEEVENT there is nothing in this spinoff article that cannot be covered adequately in the main article 2016 Normandy church attack. WWGB (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete & redirect name. Tragic, yes, but just not notable for a stand alone article. Redirect name to article on the attack, as suggested above. Kierzek (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2016 Normandy church attack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect for now to
  WP:SINGLEEVENT applies. Pincrete (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge - his career isn't notable and there have already been hundreds of martyrs in the ISIS-rest of world conflict. Even if he is sainted I am not sure it is automatically notable. DGtal (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saints are nearly always immediately notable. GuzzyG (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but local parish priests? WWGB (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If common criminals can have articles, surely so can he. Besides, it looks like the sainthood is on its way.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Common criminals do not have articles, only notable ones do. complainer (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are not notable. They are total losers. Yet they have Wikipedia articles.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiariarize yourself with

wikipedia's notability criteria. We do not judge these (or, indeed, any) matters emotionally, or according to taste. complainer (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge Whatever is notable about this guy is in the attacks article; this is a clear-cut case of notability not smearing on everything a notable event touches. complainer (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would terrorists (total losers) have articles and not this martyr?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You also might want to look up martyr; it has to do with sticking to one's guns, not with being in the wrong church wearing the wrong clothes at the wrong time. complainer (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one using this word. See this and countless newspaper articles.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can stomach the maudlin prose of that article, you'll realize there is nothing in it to prove the substance of the title according to the accepted (and ours, by the way) definition of the term. complainer (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Subject was not notable prior to death, and per
  WP:SINGLEEVENTLpele (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to the event article per
  WP:BIO1E. What's interesting is that martyrdom requires a certain set of circumstances forced by an outside party, usually a requirement to renounce a faith or pledge to another one. That doesn't appear to have happened here, and it seems to be the news outlets calling him a martyr, not the Pope. If the requirements to be a martyr were simply to be killed by someone of another religion, we're short a lot of articles. So we need to not jump to conclusions and thus declare notability on a single fact that's not substantiated by anything other than the media, who is using said word to make a point. MSJapan (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete/merge
  WP:SINGLEEVENT. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete If another priest was working that day, another priest would have very likely died the same way. ONEEVENT perpetrators at least do the thing, and I routinely vote Delete on them. If he becomes a saint, I'll change my mind. Simple martyrdom isn't enough, in any religion. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even royal martyrdom doesn't cut it, but lest we forget, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

• Merge into
  WP:1E. The additional biographical content could easily be added to the section about him in the main article. Joseph2302 21:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Merge As per BLPE BlackAmerican (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Subject was not notable prior to death, and per
  WP:SINGLEEVENT.--Catlemur (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge
  just speculation at this point. Certainly we could revisit the issue if any progress is made on that front. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge as per SINGLEEVENT policy. Hamel's notability is currently tied to the church attack. We should also note that future developments (such as a call for sainthood or beatification) could make him notable in his own right. Edge3 (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

• Keep Wikipedia would lose its value if it ignores people we are searching for info about! It is about information, not the reason for why the info is there! I'm here because I searched for info on Father Jacques Hamel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.38.117.66 (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 173.38.117.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep at least for now. --Haruo (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I was interested to know more of this man who died while serving humanity...the first place I checked was Wikipedia. What's the harm keeping it for curious fellows like myself? Further, it's seems to me that he was martyr before his death, going the extra mile, as it were, to spend himself when he could have retired...he should be recognized.Joyful Carmelbird (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)--[reply]

— Joyful Carmelbird (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Well, the NYT obit spends quite some time on him and I figure more will come out in the next few days, so I'm going with weak keep for now, knowing how thin it is right now (the French article doesn't have much more to offer). Drmies (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the person might have been non-notable prior to the incident, the incident itself makes the victim a notable now as seen by the various international press articles found on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvincent (talk,contribs) 02:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Martinvincent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• WP:INHERITORG, anyone? complainer (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• INHERITORG doesn't work. One does inherit notability from news. That's different from one inheriting notability from an organization. Ahyangyi (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There have been calls for this person to be beatified or canonized as a Catholic martyr, the discussions surrounding those calls would likely justify a separate article. Astrofreak92 (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• One notoriously Trump-like Italian politician has called for canonization. Let's not blow this out of proportion. complainer (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Catholic sources are referring to Hamel as a martyr.[1] Whether you agree with their conclusion, or the conclusion of this "Trump-like" politician, is irrelevant. These things are reactions by notable entities to the death of this individual, and being proposed as a Catholic martyr or saint is sufficient to give someone notability on their own. Wikipedia documents what happens and what notable people say and do, not what we feel should have been said or done. Astrofreak92 (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Feelings have nothing to do with this; this is the third time the article you quote is mentioned in this discussion; this is not a coincidence, but a consequence of the fact that, well, it's the least fringe source calling for beatification on google. As saints are (mass) produced by the Vatican and not by the Catholic Herald, whosoever they may be, nor by the kind of politician that goes and says that homosexuality is "a wound on one's sexual identity", the doubt is legitimate. If the church, as opposed to nebulous "catholic sources", speaks, it's a different matter. complainer (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a martyr of the Roman Catholic church will get a lot of coverage, more than enough to write a good article. Bradv 03:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How stupid that I didn't think of that--yes, technically at least he's a martyr, if it indeed it turns out that he was saying mass or otherwise engaged in the priestly business. Thanks, Bradv. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as a martyr of the Roman Catholic Church. There are already calls for a fast-track sainthood.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some double standards here. According to some, the fact that this man was not 'notable' before his death is reason for deletion. And yet, articles exist for the vile cowards who commit attacks such as this. Tell me, was Omar Mateen notable before his death? Ibrahim El Bakraoui? Najim Laachraoui? Osama Krayem? Hell no - bunch of jumped-up losers. As others have said, Jacques Hamel has been made notable by this incident. In my opinion he is far more deserving of a place in the annals of history than these deplorable terrorists. Many have hailed him a martyr. Some have even called for his canonisation. He is currently being revered throughout Christendom. He is very notable. Sillyfranzshouldnthavegonetosarajevo (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem very confused about the scope of Wikipedia. Notability has nothing to do with merit: an infamous character is notable precisely because of that, and every harangue against him on wikipedia AfD discussions makes him a little more so. complainer (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem very confused about the point I was trying to convey. I was elaborating on prior comments that the fact that this man was not notable before his death is reason for deletion. This I disagree with. As I have already mentioned, the Brussels bombers Ibrahim El Bakraoui and Najim Laachraoui were not notable before their deaths. Therefore, going by the reasoning of WWGB, they too should be nominated for deletion. Hence my mention of double standards. Sillyfranzshouldnthavegonetosarajevo (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And calling them "vile cowards" and "jumped-up losers" was pivotal to the conveyance of the elaboration? Or was it included for colour? complainer (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not pivotal per se, but certainly helpful in strengthening my case. What's an argument without some soul? Sillyfranzshouldnthavegonetosarajevo (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In this particular case, one that complies with
  WP:IDL. complainer (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I have stated what I disagree with and why. Indeed I have included 'colour', as you put it, but at no point have I explicitly, and without explanation, stated that 'I don't like' something. This pedantry is quite unpleasant. Sillyfranzshouldnthavegonetosarajevo (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, boo-hoo. This is how RfD threads work, as opposed to youTube comment threads, where one can call the subject of the video all the names he pleases. They are pedantic, rule-based and heartlessly bureaucratic. complainer (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That may be, but are there not similar guidelines on the matter of etiquette? This relay between you and I has proved utterly senseless, except perhaps in making a new Wikipedian feel uncomfortable. Think of my 'colour' as the hallmark of a newbie. I do wholeheartedly apologise if in some way I have offended you with it, but at the same time I would like to respectfully note that I feel you are being needlessly acerbic. I feel that Jacques Hamel's article, in accordance with his being hailed a martyr, should be kept and expanded as further information is released. Is my opinion worth much? I don't know, but I apologise for my 'colour' and any upset it may have caused you. I shall make sure and keep my future arguments thoroughly devoid of colour. Thank you for this lesson. Please do not write a further response as I would like to avoid being dragged into further argument. Have a nice day. Sillyfranzshouldnthavegonetosarajevo (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help knock down the Brussels guys if you set them up. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Brussels bombers were just an example. I've not got anything in particular against them. Well, except for the whole terrorist thing. Sillyfranzshouldnthavegonetosarajevo (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never met the guys myself, I was just talking about knocking their articles down. Thought I read something about "they too should be nominated for deletion." If not, that's alright. Next to Harry Lehman, both are practically polymaths. It's all relative. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bradv. Any non-notable clergy of an established faith who is murdered in the course of his job duties will have independent RS coverage promptly, likely before the AfD is scheduled to end. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BALL anyone? complainer (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This isn't a page for you to personally harass everyone to get your point across, care to be civil? 75.151.5.228 (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see a misunderstanding, here. Were I not to assume good faith, I'd say that you think mentioning policies is harassment; since I do, which is a wikipedia policy, I'll simply point out that
  WP:BALL is not a veiled obscenity, but an actual wikipedia policy. Seriously: try and follow the link. complainer (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep for now - I'd say
  this AfD is too soon. Now, I'm going to repeat what I said on the talk page: this is the first time I've heard of a Catholic priest being killed by Islamic terrorists, at least in recent days. I say we wait on a potential merge until further developments come in. Then we can judge if this article should be deleted or not. Parsley Man (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, not only a tragic incident, but his person got a coverege enough. Also, if Wikipedia are keeping this kind of articles, he merited it more.--Noel baran (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The nomination is proposing merger/redirection rather than deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. I think this may be premature. In time, it may become clear that this is a classic case of
  WP:BLP1E. I strongly suspect, however, that eventually it will fail criteria 2 as he will not likely remain a low-profile individual. He is being hailed as a martyr, and there are calls for his canonization coming in already. If he is declared a saint he obviously won't fall under BLP1E. Let's wait and see. --BrianCUA (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

We do not wait for expected notability. It is the very definition of

WP:BALL complainer (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• It's already quite clear that
  WP:GNG is passed too. Andrew D. (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The correct policy is

WP:WL-based discussion complainer (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Although I routinely iVote to merge articles on both perp and victim of incidents of this sort back into main article. Sometimes, however, a victim can become notable after his death. In this case, this does seem to be the first Catholic priest murdered in Europe, at the altar, while saying mass by an
  WP:BIO. Even before you get to the fact that his death is already being used as a marker of the fact that church in Europe may require the sort of constant, armed guards and security checks that were forced on synagogues in Europe by circumstances a few years ago, see, for example, Murder of French priest opens a new frontier for Catholic church, [4] in [[The Guardian], there are similar articles in other papers, but for the Guardian to be concerned about protecting the church is an indication of how notable Father Hamel has become in death.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note
  WP:RAPID that rushing this sort of article to AFD wastes a lot of time because if we let even a few weeks go by notability is very likely to become clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong keep. A clergyman killed on European soil, he's a martyr. Similar to Kenji Goto, just more so. Zaostao (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I may not be well-versed in religious subjects, but I am quite sure martyrdom is unrelated to the nature of the soil. complainer (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you don't. So, in case you wondered: Vatican politics being a subset of politics, geography does impact martyrdom and sainthood. The Curia works to insure that identity groups, regions and states have saints and martyrs they can identify with, among other goals, while strictly observing formal criteria (wikilawyering has nothing on the curia). This case has already caught the full attention of the Vatican.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are a great number of obituaries in major international publications of Fr. Hamel. His being a priest martyred in Europe in the 21st Century is historically notable and the article serves as valuable information on a subject which is likely to be of interest in the future. RobertSRWilson (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As noted above, notable within the
  Roman Catholic Church, which is a very large organization, because he has the status of a martyr, which is significant and unusual. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - I agree with E.M.Gregory --Alain Schneider (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep for all the reasons mentioned by other editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith1122 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He is a martyr because he was killed because of his religion and status as a priest. This was very far from a random killing. Also, you say he wasn't noteworthy until he was killed? Neither was
  JFK. Plenty of people aren't noteworthy until they are involved in a specific event, including being killed, almost being killed or doing killing. There is nothing odd about this being an article. If you want to go on a crusade against a worthless biographical article, try Mia Bloom75.151.5.228 (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Still hung up on that, eh? Pretty funny. Cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

• Strong keep because this incident is something totally new: ISIS supporters going into a European church to kill people during worship services. I believe it is indeed the first time we've seen this specific type of attack by ISIS in the West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamFetscherBrown (talk • contribs) 20:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep coverage around the world meets
  WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Hamel personality was chosen not by chance killers, this is confirmed by many sources.--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep BUT rename to Murder of Jacques Hamel and merge that terrible article name "2016 Normandy church attack" to the Murder of Jacques Hamel. No news source calls it "2016 Normandy church attacks" so this is original research. French Wikipedia uses Jacques Hamel name. Admiral James T Kirk (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This KEEP comment was at the top of the page but I am moving it to the bottom where it should be.

Stop the blaitant anti-catholic bias and keep the page up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.114.128 (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 88.109.114.128 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep This is a good article about man who was a victim of terrorism. He lived to a very old age, only to be taken down by a violent criminal. Yes, there is a separate article about the attack on the church itself, but, just as there are other articles about crimes & other tragedies, which include separate articles, regarding the victims, so too, should this man's page be kept.--Splashen (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about these guys? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, make Wikipedia articles about them too. Problem solved.--Splashen (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But...then...OK, you win this round. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)*'[reply]

• Keep I certainly want to know more about this priest, and I am sure many others do as well.--npzinos

• I think the misunderstood issue here is that you will not know more at all. Whatever material is put in this article will immediately be pasted onto the main one, and any attempt at expunging it will be reverted and bitched at. I am not advocating a merge because I think Mr. Hamel is irrelevant per se, but because this article will be a collection of mindless, literal repetitions, which is, I imagine, the reason we have
  WP:1E at all. complainer (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• keep at the top of the article, there was an ad alerting people of this delete discussion. Famous man. Keep article. Nangeli Ouch (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is not a usual victim because he is going to be declared a martyr by the Roman Catholic Church. 75.83.24.85 (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 75.83.24.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Question of Sorts: I understand the logic behind not allowing people to have articles for being notable for one event, in the abstract. But in reality, isn't that what a lot of people are? Think of terrorists and assassins (wiki's page on one event even cites Princip, who I was actually considering citing myself), many of them only have event to their name. I keep bringing it up, but Crispus Attucks is directly analogous to this- famous for being killed in a notable way. Wiki's official policy is: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." His role WAS significant in that it was him being involved that makes it so noteworthy. Otherwise it would just be another terror attack in France-- this gets the entire Catholic and Christian communities involved directly. People are citing one event like it says people famous for one event CAN'T have articles, but that's not what it says at all, read the whole thing.75.151.5.228 (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. If that happens, there will be something substantial to write about. Until then IMO, it is sincere, but misplaced sentiment to have an article seperate from the main event, which is the only reason we all know his name. Pincrete (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep high-rank Catholic authorities —like Card. O'Malley[1] and Archbishop Anthony Fisher^[2] have supported the possibility of him becoming a martyr (saint). His death, by the way, uncovers him as a worker for interreligious dialogue, which at leasts catalyzes his noticeability.Cato censor (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

O'Malley doesn't actually give support to Hamel being declared a martyr, he explains what the requirements are. A Sydney Archbishop has said Hamel fits the definition, but even so, not a 'call' for it to happen. The usual definition of 'martyr', involves a conscious choice to not renounce one's faith, though it can include being killed because of one's faith. Pincrete (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By saying he supports the possibility, I mean he said Fr. Hamel meets the requirement (i.e.Odium Fidei). He also said it's up to French Catholics to pursue such a declaration, that is obviously reserved to the Pope. Cato censor (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my English.Cato censor (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed. Any such 'campaign' by the French church, could 'tip the balance' on Hamel having his own article, but for now, I stick with my 'Merge' vote. Pincrete (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Catholic martyr. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note the sheer density of coverage, a good deal of which is along the lines of Giles Fraser's article in today's The Guardian ''The sacrificial imagery is unavoidable. And soon after his killing, #JeSuisPretre – I am a priest – began trending on social media... He died, as he believed, on his knees – not in supplication to his... murderers, but to the author of life itself to whom he was about to return...." As I argued above, and as Fraser argues here, the the symbolism is so compelling, "the sacrifice of the cross is the non-violent absorption of human violence. The offer of love in return for hate, even to the point of death. This is the horrendous price that peace is sometimes asked to pay. This is what makes the eucharistic sacrifice life-giving and not some historical death cult. And this is the sacrifice that Father Jacques was celebrating as he died. He died as a priest..." I could argue that this priest as a symbol is so obviously going to have traction that we might as well just keep it now, and not have to recreate it in a couple of months. But that would not be policy-based. So I will simply point out that coverage of the man is now sufficient to keep both the bio and the event as pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Keep - This very devout man has given his life to bettering the world he lives in while he celebrates mass and teaches Catholicism; and, although he may not have been known by many outside the small circle he lived and served in until the morning of July 26, 2016, he died as he lived by giving his life for others! He was martyred for his faith - a faith that believes God loves all! If I and others cannot look up an individual such as this on Wikipedia and find at least a brief introductory article, what good is Wikipedia??? The same Wikipedia that carries individual articles on radical islamic terrorists such as the one who killed many in Nice, those who carried out the Charlie Hebdo attacks and of course the ringleader of the September 11th attacks on America, etc. etc. etc. I would much rather read about a Catholic priest, Père Jacques Hamel, who to some may have lived an unremarkable life until his tragic martyrdom than read about these weak terrorists who kill the most innocent among us in the most cowardly way when their lives are not going their way in a country they or their parents chose to move to without any intention of assimilating into their new environment! I would have to say, Père Jacques Hamel's life is quite remarkable now and his grand character and beliefs shined through for all to see! Wake-UpRéveillez-vous (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC) WakeUpRéveillez-vous I moved this new comment to the bottom of the discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Wake-UpRéveillez-vous (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Weak keep for time being I understand
  WP:CRYSTAL but it's not too unlikely to say that this man will be remembered in years to come because of the way he lived and died. See how posthumous recognition and celebration was given to Rachel Scott and Cassie Bernall for the same reason. The campaign to make him a saint is likely to stay vigorous, and should he become a saint, would be concrete notability '''tAD''' (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Scott became a successful author after death. Bernall had missing white woman syndrome. Hamel has his own story, but it's nothing like theirs. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The argument that he was not notable until his death is in my opinion invalid. Except for the rare cases where people are notable at birth (such as some members of royal families), no one is notable until they become notable due to a potential variety of factors, including events happening during their life. The fact that the event causing the notability (per Wikipedia standards) happened at the very end of his life, does not affect whether he has become notabile or not. And he certainly is now. --Danmuz (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And in regard to the argument that since he became notable due to his death, then the article could just as well be merged into the article about the attack, I think not. The life of any notable person is automatically of encyclopedical relevance, including said person's early history before he or she became notable. If that was not the case then all biographies should begin only when notability was established... that would be absurd. However, those pre-notabilty details are irrelevant to the article about the attack itself and belong only in an article about the person, in this case Jacques Hamel himself. --Danmuz (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'd argue that martyrs recognized by the Roman Catholic church are almost always notable; they attract enough attention to get
  askesis. In other words, all martyrs are notable and confessors, but all confessors are notable and martyrs, even if the process of martyrdom reveals their holiness. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep A notable and memorable death : the horrendous violation and murder of a this special person in a sacred space at a special event, even in an obscure location, is a resonant and meaningful reality that people will likely continue to recall for a long time. 136.167.206.208 (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 136.167.206.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

His death already has an article. This is about whether there was anything else notable about him. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point but it is the attack that has the article. Compare the article

Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. The person is not swallowed up in "Deaths at 2009 Iranian protests." 136.167.30.63 (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The difference is his death was the central feature of the attack. Take that out of the equation, the story as we know it disappears, and just a daily Mass remains. Take Agha-Soltan out of the protests, there are still 35-149 other deaths and heaps of live stuff. Her death had its own characteristics, his are the same as in the article we already have. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed that is a fine distinction you make, and I see good reason in it. But fame has its own, widely disparate dynamics, and I think some are in play here, given the charge some people are finding in this story. Are people locking on to this figure as not only worthy of memorialization in himself but symbolic of very large historical forces and meanings that are in play, perhaps even archetypally in the starkness of the details? Encyclopedias include things of note. Given the low noteworthiness quotient of some other items in Wikipedia, I would say this priest is well above the minimum significance level. I stay with Keep but respect your opinion.136.167.30.63 (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely smokes

Schenute at the fame game. Even his places don't have articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

He has now had so much coverage that he is a person of note. Google search for his name in quotes plus "Vouvray" gives 881,000 entries. 136.167.30.63 (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Hamel was representing the Roman Catholic Church's
  interreligious dialogue. His wise words proved his peaceful mind. His assassination was an IS attack against interreligious respect in whole France to destruct society's ideal of brotherhood. He truly deserves an en.wikipedia-article as personality of history. Comparable to August_von_Kotzebue, an historic author which would have been forgotten, but his politically relevant assassination placed him even in en.wikipedia despite of relevance just for German history! The call for deletion by Stephen must be withdrawn - by himself - immediately - please! Uwe Kulick (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

— Uwe Kulick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep: he is and will be a personality of european history and the history of Catholic Church for a long term --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Catholic martyr. --SML (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— SML (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep; I was interested to know more of this man who died while serving humanity...the first place I checked was Wikipedia. What's the harm keeping it for curious fellows like myself? Further, it's seems to me that he was martyr before his death, going the extra mile, as it were, to spend himself when he could have retired...he should be recognized.Joyful Carmelbird (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)--[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Joyful Carmelbird (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

There is no harm. Curious fellows would stil learn everything they would here, just there. Duplication is the problem, not information. Ever hear about Henri Tomei, the French priest murdered in church to prevent earthquakes? The Bishop of San Francisco called him "a very friendly, charitable man". InedibleHulk (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, in other words since there are roses that are red, what's the use for yellow, white, or pink ones? Or again, there is

Frances Schervier?...all were Franciscans named Francis, but are they necessarily duplicates?--Joyful Carmelbird (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep for now. His notability is still up in the air. This deletion nomination is extremely premature. Philip72 (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC) I would suggest that many other figures would not be remembered were it not for the manner of their deaths. Here, as with the murder of Pierre Claverie at Oran in 2006, there comes a fresh twist in the story of modern terrorism: Daesh never targeted a priest in Europe before: there has been a terrific movement of sympathy and solidarity between religions. Robertmassam[reply]
• Keep While the person might have been non-notable prior to the incident, the incident itself makes the victim notable. Spem Reduxit (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep On the one hand, if it is a unique killing of a western religious figure, then its notable on that count - if it is the first of a sequence of killings then it remains notable. GregKaye 21:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- At worst merge and redi9rect to the article on the attack. He was clearly a martyr and as such is likely to be canonised. Plain deletion should certainly not be an option. Unlike the victims of other jihadist attacks, he was clearly not a mere random victim (who would be NN), but was killed because he was in the course of celebrating mass. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the fact that he was singled-out because of his priesthood and that it is his priesthood that made the attack so noticable on a larger scale from other attacks lends credence to the notion of his notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To be kept:
  • 1) for alle the reasons mentioned abopve,
  • 2) For the fact that he is the first priest to be murdered in church while celebrating Mass, since the murders of the Vendée War in early 18th C.
  • 3) Because the presence of his biography in 15 languages of Wikipedia, makes it all the more recommended to have it also on the most important one
  • 4) The event was so extraordinary and covered and commented upon all over the world, that people will in the years to come look for information on the man and his death and will of course first turn to Wikipedia. Andries Van den Abeele (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep -- His name is now well known, and many people will be looking for information about him. Als students researching violence, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicaris-General (talk • contribs) 20:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Vicaris-General (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Early close?

Given that there are a large number, and broad spectrum of arguments. Would early close be appropriate? Pincrete (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What you are requesting is that it
  WP:SNOWBALL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Yes, please close it now. There is overwhelming consensus to keep it.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Not sure why this was nominated for AfD in the first place. Being honored with Martyrdom (regardless of religion) in itself has the stamp of notability. Merging with the article of his murder isn't the right approach either. Should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hampai 15 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Apologies if my !vote's in the wrong place however I have no idea where to place it!, Anyway merge as it fails BLP1E - Had it not been for the atrocious act he would never of had an article and I don't mean this in a nasty way but he's unknown outisde of the attack, Better off merged imho. –Davey2010^Talk 00:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very sensible. Meets notability guidelines. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:54, 5 August 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.