Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hasan Ali Khan

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Ali Khan[edit]

Article is not suitable for an encyclopedia. The events it describes appear to be news items regarding various criminal cases in progress against a particular person. There is also a possible violation of WP:BLP Albert584 (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nom states, this reads as if it is a newspaper account of an ongoing investigation WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. Further, quite a few parts are based on allegations rather than documented facts. Interesting, but not encyclopedic. Tim Ross (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Albert584, we deem suitability for an encyclopaedia based on notability, not how poorly written it is. BLP concerns too are not a cause for deletion unless there is compelling libellous information present. The subject is. Ample sources from reliable media available to establish notability. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with Nicalp. Multiple sources surpass WP:GNG. Its a mater of cleanup, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the person who nominated the article for deletion, I wish to point out that I have nominated the article for deletion, not because of the quality of writing but rather because of the fact that the article is essentially a collection of news items, does not appear to contain certain important details that you would expect to find in a biography (e.g. when and where was the person born) and fails to explain why the person is notable enough to be worthy of mention in an encyclopedia.

Also, note that there is a difference between presumption of notability (as established by a large number of reliable sources) and actual notability (which requires more than simply saying "there are plenty of reliable sources"). I believe that while the person described in the article has made headlines for his alleged criminal activities, this does not make the person a notable figure in history. Therefore, the statement "Multiple sources surpass WP:GNG" may not hold in this case. We will have to wait longer to see if that happens.

As for cleaning up the article, that suggestion would normally be better than outright deletion; unfortunately, there is barely anything worth salvaging now and the notability of the person in history is a problem as well. Albert584 (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2009 (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.