Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Abdur Rehman Cheema

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. (non-admin closure) Dea db eef 21:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Abdur Rehman Cheema[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BLP1E & WP:VICTIM Darkness Shines (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per nom~~, what the hell is this. He's a criminal who was foiled in a matter of seconds. I once flushed a tennis ball down the toilet in the locker room bathrooms at my high school, can I have a Wikipedia article too? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mezzo,are you really equating the importance of the events.? Does what he was trying to do seem that unimportant to you? No newspaper is going to cover your lost tennis ball, and apart from the intrinsic importance of the vents, that question of coverage is the basis of our usual guideline. this is perhaps the most over-extended false analogy I can remember being proposed here to denigrate the importance of a subject. The man was intent on a religiously motivated murder, and how long it took to catch him does not seem relevant. I'm commenting on the reasoning, not saying keep/delete, for of course it is the case that not all religiously motivated attempts to murder are notable , and I need to think about the coverage of this one. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the comment above is entirely inappropriate for an AfD based on uncivil language, poor argumentation, and lack of policy discussion. Please keep in mind the context -- this is not a locker room -- and be mindful of other audiences. Crtew (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have one word to describe the analogy by MezzoMezzo, Ridiculous.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use a policy based argument because it was an article with only two sources, prior to CTew's edits, it honestly did seem that ridiculous to me. I can withdraw my push for deletion per the latest edits to the article, but I'm not sure of "what the hell" really is a breahc of uncivil language; lately, I've noticed the F-word thrown around on multiple AfD discussions, in every instance there were no repercussions. I'm not defending that, I'm just making the point that I feel "what the hell" is rather tame compared to a lot of what I've seen lately. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that wasn't really the problem, but the nature of the comparison in your analogy DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC) .[reply]

Keep - per coverage of this "non notable criminal". seem to pass GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the coverage is where exactly? three hitrs og GNews Zero hits on GBooks other than Wikipedia ripoffs. And a general search brings up only 33,900 hits, I am not going to look at how many are RS, but I am willing to bet that those that are only mention the one thing. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As an stand-alone article this would clearly fall under WP:NOTNEWS. In the context with Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy it shows one of the supranational results of the controversy. Per WP:GNG. The press coverage of the controversy was way more intense in Europe then in the US. --Ben Ben (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This person passes WP:SIGCOV and was widely reported in Germany and Pakistan, as well as by the BBC and Al-Jazeera. The nominator had made several gross errors in submitting this to AfD. First, a BLP1E applies only to living persons, which is what the "LP" stands for. Second, he later asserts that he can't find any sources for the subject. That's true if you search by the whole name, but if you search for "Cheema" and "suicide" or other terms, then you will find many more reliable sources (or RS articles). As for WP:Victim, this is for a normal crime, but when you have a situation that is controversial and international relations comes into play, then it's not as relevant. Moreoever, I agree with others above that his death was part of the larger ramifications of the publication of the cartoons and is a good example of how Germany was affected. Moreover, the attack on a journalist makes this an important issue for WikiProject Journalism. Crtew (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fresh Content: I added some other references to the sources. Crtew (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2013 (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.