Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Eyes on Rafah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. Strong arguments on both sides, and a solid merge proposal, but no consensus emerging after two weeks despite the broad participation, making it unlikely we'd see a consensus materialize by relisting. Owen× ☎ 22:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Eyes on Rafah

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

All Eyes on Rafah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a social media slogan, with the thumbnail - essentially its main bit - a social media AI generated image which was trending on Instagram on two days. The slogan gained traction as it was used by, among many others, many social media influencers. In accordance to WP:NOTDIARY, as well as WP:RECENT as a whole (because it is a small event belonging to the Rafah offensive), I believe this article should be deleted. A bit about this can be added to the "international reaction" header in the Rafah offensive article, but it should not exist standalone Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it had a seismic impact, especially in allowing broader acceptance in having pro-Palestinian views. In the same way the black squares in the BLM movement swept across platforms in 2020, All Eyes of Rafah was a turning point for many in Instagram and beyond, and detailing its impact would be too long for a comfortable read in the Rafah offensive page. This page does just that, and to simplify it wouldn't do justice to the shockwaves they've presented. It may have a minute effect on the grand scheme of things in politics, but it sure swayed the limit of what's deemed acceptable across international communities and societies. Azurevanilla ash (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like you said, it has had a minute effect on the grand scheme of things in politics. If it turns out to be more significant in the future, it can be recreated. Not right not. Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. We aren't responsible for cataloguing every single viral phenomenon, ever. If this proves to have enough significance to be covered a year or two from now, then maybe we can re-create then. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 00:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. This topic is discussed in reliable sources but does not meet the additional criteria for a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC) See updated comment below Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the interest in this topic as a new phenomenon in global conflict media has continued. See for example, a 25 minute TV program aired yesterday, and an AP explainer from last week. If organizations like these can create post-fact focused articles and programs on the topic, it is equally appropriate for Wikipedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I and other users have mentioned, it violated WP:NOT. A paragraph or even 2 can be included on the main rafah page instead Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I concur that WP:NOT and WP:NOTNEWS are violated by this article. Garsh (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOT, though maybe a few sentences could be salvaged into some other articles. FortunateSons (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this flavor of the day campaign per NOT and NOTNEWS. gidonb (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain how this violates WP:NOTNEWS? VR (Please ping on reply) 04:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
routine news coverage of announcements. gidonb (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . Wikipedia is not a directory for every internet slogan. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People voting delete perhaps have a case for the abstract "slogan", but that's not all this article represents.
The most notable aspect of this phrase is the viral AI-generated image that was shared over 50 million times on Instagram, generating worldwide headlines specifically focused on the image. The AI-generated image and associated online protest clearly meet GNG with massive coverage in every top newspaper. Multiple facets of the AI image are covered in reliable sources that bring it beyond WP:NOTNEWS:
  1. Comparisons with Blackout Tuesday and other "online protests". Image has already been held up as an example of performative activism and surely will continue to be referenced as such in the future.
  2. Early high-profile AI image. "All Eyes on Rafah" has been shared over 50 million times, making it one of the most seen / most shared AI images of all time right at the cusp of this "AI boom" that's currently happening. This image is going to forever have a place in the history of early Artificial intelligence art.
  3. Usage of AI in political/social movements, disinformation, deepfakes, Artificial intelligence in government, etc. This "All Eyes on Rafah" image has already spawned discussion about the ethics of the use of AI images in political movements, and is sure to continue to be referenced as such. Such as yesterday in the Washington Post: Deepfakes and AI-generated images have been around for several years, but as the technology improves and the tools to make them become widely available, they’ve become increasingly common on social media platforms. An AI-generated image of a sprawling refugee camp with the words “All Eyes on Rafah” went viral in late May as a way for people to show their support for Palestinians in Gaza. As major elections take place across the globe, some politicians have tried to use fake images to make their opponents look bad.
The image has cited "enduring notability" in reliable sources, passing the WP:NOTNEWS bar. The image has already prompted re-analysis on the above facets in the weeks since it went viral. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each and every reason which you have given does not make sense for the given page:
  • The article, not the picture is being nominated here for deletion. The image may / may not exist on here or on commons - as it is the most notable aspect of the article. It does not warrant an entire article for itself.
  • Blackout Tuesday was an event. A phenomenon. It does not compare to a mere hashtag - version of an AI image which lasted for 24 hours on social media - without materialising. Thats exactly why part of this should be added to Rafah or sample AI pages and not have one of its own.
Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is mainly about the image and associated social media protest. It's perfectly valid to write encyclopedia articles about notable images. The AI image does warrant an entire article for itself, based on its cited coverage in reliable sources.
50 million people posting this image was also an event/phenomenon. It was directly compared to Blackout Tuesday by myriad reliable sources. Any deletion arguments here apply equally to Blackout Tuesday; neither should be deleted. The next significant coverage about the next social media protest in the future will surely mention both.
PK-WIKI (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this article isnt about the image. Its about the phenomenon Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per PK-WIKI. The image was specifically covered for being AI-generated, which will have a long-term impact. C F A 💬 14:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a valid reason - thats the image you are talking about. That image can exist on commons or whatever. It does not warrant its own article, as per reasons I and other users have given above Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An encyclopedia article can be written about a notable image or photograph. We have thousands of such articles on wikipedia. PK-WIKI (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pharaoh496: What are you talking about? I don't understand. Obviously an image can have an article, just like any other topic on Wikipedia. C F A 💬 18:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is NOT centred on the image. It is centred on an internet phenomenon and not an image Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PK-WIKI Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the GNG, has generated widespread coverage across a range of sources. For example, these sources are all entirely devoted to covering this event:
  1. Associated Press
  2. Al-Jazeera
  3. NBC News
  4. BBC
  5. NPR (which calls it the internet's most viral AI-created image ever)
  6. Vox
  7. Time
  8. Washington Post
  9. Wired
  10. The National (UAE)
  11. France 24
Along with articles covering the phrase along with the image such as the NYTimes. No actual case for deletion exists here, this clears the GNG easily. nableezy - 16:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was also news of "Where is Kate"? And that article is deleted. You have not said any reason how it supports wikipedia's scope to be here. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia covers notable events, this is one per the sources I just cited. nableezy - 17:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not always the case, as @Vegan416 has explained below Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS. Vegan416 (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTNEWS is about routine news coverage, not full length articles about an event. It simply does not apply here, and no matter how many people parrot the same bogus claim it remains a bogus claim. nableezy - 19:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This can hardly be described as an event... Vegan416 (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is based on nothing. The sources are clearly treating it as noteworthy event and are giving it in depth coverage. nableezy - 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can find you more reliable sources covering in depth each and every ball game in the NBA or NFL or Premiere League or Champion League in the last 50 years. Yet we do not have wikipedia articles for each and every one of them. Vegan416 (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nableezy's list of sources above. Additionally, most slogans don't receive even a fraction of the coverage this one has clearly received, especially through WP:RS. Pretty much reiterating what PK-WIKI stated earlier, but the AI-Generated image in particular has been widely publicized as a key example of performative activism and it's very clear that this entire slogan has met WP:GNG standards at this point. Most votes in favor of deleting the article so far have vaguely referenced WP:NOT and WP:NOTNEWS without making any sort of clarification as to how this article specifically violates such policies. I particularly don't see how this violates NOTNEWS, this is not "offering first-hand news reports on a breaking story" or constituting as a primary source. B3251(talk) 02:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having sources does not warrant having an article for an internet phenomenon which did not last for over thirty-six hours.
    • The article is predominantly about an image. The image can exist on commons and information / events can be put in other places.
    Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A political slogan is not an “internet phenomenon which did not last for over thirty-six hours.” Somebody in favor of deleting Blackout Tuesday, which drew many parallels with this, could use the same argument; that does not make it true nor does it warrant deletion for that article or this one. Unless we know where exactly information about this can be merged into, we shouldn’t be vaguely suggesting that it should just be moved somewhere else. B3251(talk) 16:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its a pro-palestine slogan, yes. But the reason it gaines coverage is because of the internet phenomenon. No materialistic action/event took place.
    • I have an opinion on where it could be merged - Rafah offensive where it gained traction. In the reactions section.
    Pharaoh496 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The event is the 50 million people sharing it. nableezy - 17:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • 44 million
    • It lasted for thirty-six hours! How is gonna pass any ten year test when it cant pass the ten month test?
    Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently inclined to keep, but we shall see. Right now, the keepers are making a stronger case and backing it up more so than the deleters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Nableezy's list, Huldra (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the exhaustive source list provided by Nableezy. A huge chunk of high quality sources that are explicitly about the image and slogan makes me extremely confused by the voters claiming this somehow fails GNG. How? Similarly, simply saying "This fails WP:NOT", isn't helpful, which part? NOTNEWS specifics "Routine news coverage", which these articles clearly aren't. The coverage here makes this an obvious keep. Parabolist (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify here, those in favor of deleting have not argued against this meeting GNG, but rather primarily NOT and NOTNEWS, albeit quite vaguely. B3251(talk) 23:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to another article as per WP:NOTNEWS. Also compare with Yes We Can.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And right below that is Obama's "Hope" poster, which has it's own article. Parabolist (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Should be deleted also. No agitprop on Wikipedia. Tkaras1 (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nableezy's sources, some of which show significant socio-political commentary.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the amount of coverage provided by Nableezy. There's enough depth here to justify an article. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 10:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Pass WP:GNG, Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per NOTNEWS and NOTDIARY. Closer to agitprop, actually. Tkaras1 (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: per above. Lionel Cristiano? 00:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Major news outlets like Al-Jazeera, Time, BBC, and Washington Post have all covered the event. This coverage clearly meets WP:GNG. Waqar💬 20:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nableezy's sources User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is viral news that is making an impact worldwide. Ibn Juferi (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What impact exactly, elaborate? Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Rafah offensive#International reactions in a new section entitled "All Eyes on Rafah." I am updating my previous vote struck through above. After reviewing the sources Nableezy provided and the other !votes, I agree that it meets the sourcing test of WP:GNG. However, we must also evaluate the need for a standalone page. Because this hashtag is a reaction to the Rafah offensive, it can best be understood in the context of that page per WP:PAGEDECIDE, and a merge best answers the test of WP:NOPAGE. Moreover, since we do not yet understand the WP:NSUSTAINED impact of the hashtag and whether it will be an enduring subject, merging to Rafah offensive allows future readers to have appropriate context. Should it be truly sustained, it can be broken out as a standalone article in the future. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We already do have sustained, retrospective coverage and analysis of the AI image in the weeks after it went viral:
    • Bloomberg, June 17: ‘All Eyes on Rafah’ Campaign Presages a Wave of AI Activism
    • Time, June 6: From Papua to the DRC, the 'All Eyes on...' Social Media Campaign Looks Beyond Rafah
    These articles do not mention "the Rafah offensive" at all, making that merge destination inappropriate. The focus of the sustained analysis is on the AI image and the usage of the "All Eyes on..." snowclone phrase in other protests. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You havent answered properly. This does not need a standalone page. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NO OBJECTION to this compromise. I have expressed my opinion elsewhere so please only count this as a reaction to a specific proposal. gidonb (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is about "All Eyes on..." images as an independent concept, then the sourcing is far thinner for a standalone page. The page would need to reflect that rather than focus on the Rafah image as the article does now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per NOTNEWS and NOTDIARY. Really? A MEME that is popular for five minutes gets a Wiki article? Perhaps a sentence on some other article, about the Rafah offensive? DaringDonna (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was not a meme? I'm not sure what you're referring to. C F A 💬 15:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It IS a short-spanned phenomenon that came and went. If a resolution for this is passed, about a thousand other trends and news items should get their artcle - with everyone being able to come up with examples Pharaoh496 (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no indication that the slogan has had a definite timeline. Considering that it has been used as far back as February, and that the offensive has showed no signs of ending, I am confused as to under which manner it has "came and went". SomethingAppealing (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Couple of things to unpack here:
    • The invasion began in Feb, not the slogan officially
    • All those advocating for keep are confused as to whether this is an article for the slogan, or for the image. There are many above who say that "this image" should have an article. Thats not really required as the image can just exist on commons with some words on ai/instagram ewlated articles. As far as the slogan is concerned - the slogan has currently vanished 99% from social media. So the use of this image has diminished. It remains agitprop at this time to have its own article. It WAS popular for five minutes, as mentioned by @DaringDonna.
    • "The offensive has showed no signs of ending" the length of a conflict as a whole does not dictate the validity of an early visible trend which people got to see.
    Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2024 (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/All_Eyes_on_Rafah&oldid=1231002839"