Deletion of Jacques Hamel

Comment: into 2016 Normandy church attack#Jacques Hamel He's only notable for being killed in the attack, and so fails . The additional biographical content could easily be added to the section about him in the main article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: Subject was not notable prior to death, and per  there is nothing in this spinoff article that cannot be covered adequately in the main article 2016 Normandy church attack
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SINGLEEVENT)

Comment: 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 Islamist militant. (Formal recognition by the church and informal veneration by the faithful is almost certain to follow, but  is irrelevant to this discussion.)  What is causing me to iVote to keep is the coverage of this man's life. Thoroughly post-Christian major international media  NYTimes, CNN http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/07/26/iaw-amanpour-france-church-attack-priest.cnn  The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/26/father-jacques-hamel-normandy-france-a-good-priest-who-did-his-job-to-the-very-end  are running long profiles.  So, he passes  .  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,'' https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/26/jacques-hamel-killing-challenge-pope-francis-catholic-church 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:BIO)

Comment: WP:TOOSOON and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SINGLEEVENT)

Comment: Subject was not notable prior to death, and per 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SINGLEEVENT)

Comment: and redirect for now to 2016 Normandy church attack, this decision has nothing to do with sentiment, nor 'Otherstuffexists', such as Mateen. At present all relevant biographical info fits happily into main article, if that situation changes, the decision can be revisited. He is of course VERY notable, but solely with regard to this incident, therefore  applies
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SINGLEEVENT)

Comment: I'd argue that martyrs recognized by the Roman Catholic church are almost always notable; they attract enough attention to get |significant coverage in many reliable sources. Most martyrs are ''not notable until they die'' -- by definition they are merely confessors until death for their faith. The distinction was the subject of my triplet sister's Ph.D. thesis (see Logan, Barbara Ellen. ''The Askesis of Abjection: The Ethics of Everyday Suffering in Early Christian Martyrdoms''. 2002.) via the process of 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: to the event article per .  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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: I think this may be premature.  In time, it may become clear that this is a classic case of .  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: WP:Merge what?|or just '''redirect''' to the attack page. Tragic, of course, but clear-cut BIO1E. It's interesting that some want him named a saint, but that's |just speculation at this point. Certainly we could revisit the issue if any progress is made on that front
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Subject was not notable prior to death, and per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SINGLEEVENT)

Comment: I understand  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)