Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanaullah Haq

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Whereas all agree that BLP#1 (One event) is relevant for the evaluation, there is no consensus whether this policy applies to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanaullah Haq[edit]

Sanaullah Haq (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)

Per WP:BLP1E Darkness Shines (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This banner should be nominated for deletion. What purpose does it serve? It could placed on every AfD or none. And what possible difference does it make? Crtew (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is so the IPs or Spas who turn up know that unless they make a vote grounded in policy it will not make a bit of difference to the outcome. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who decides which article gets the banner and which doesn't? A banner like this isn't going to stop anybody, and the editors who close these discussions know the policies anyway. It's useless.Crtew (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Crtew you know that I respect your opinion. But, Sir, this is not right time or venue to discuss the demerits of this template. It frankly seems a diversion from the real topic. If you really want to delete the template then nominate it for deletion or start a discussion on the talk of {{notavote}} as opposed to cluttering things up here. Thank you, Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article no doubt constitutes a current event, and it's notable, as per the article of Sarabjit Singh is also an Indian prisoner, that article should also be nominated for deletion. Sanaullah Haq has reliable sources, and is under fast development and expansion, and should be kept. Secondly the reasoning for deletion is not appropriate. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is not Sarabjit Singh "notable only for one event"? Faizan -Let's talk! 13:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a world of difference between a guy charged, convicted and given the death sentence for alleged terrorist actions. Also the fact that he was given a Presidential pardon, which was then revoked and a guy who got shived in prison. Also read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Darkness Shines (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And how is the reasoning for deletion not appropriate? WP:BLP1E is quite an appropriate reason. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DS, remember the AfD of Islamic Green when Faizan promised the article would be expanded which never happened? Strike Σagle 13:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then is not this important that as a revenge to the death of Sarabjhit, Sanaullah was attacked(and possibly killed)? Sanaullah was mage victim of the Indian avenge, and it make the aticle notable. And the matter was different at Islamic Green, Now the under discussion article of Sanaullah Haq is notable, already expanded(not a stub). Faizan -Let's talk! 13:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
re DS, the presidential pardon was given to Surjeet Singh, not Sarabjit Singh. You seem to be confusing the two. Mar4d (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't digress from the current discussion by using a red herring. Thanks. Ralfan (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fact, and was never meant for "red herring". Faizan -Let's talk! 15:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion on the Afd Sanaullah Haq. If you feel some other article is unmerited, you could request an Afd for it separately. However, in the current discussion, please do not imply that an article on Sanaullah is justified just because another article exists on Wikipedia inspite of being notable for a single event!. Let us discuss this article on its merits with regard to Wikipedia's policies. I have repeatedly pointed out that the present biography is not justified per Wikipedia's current policies.- Ralfan (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Hey! Wait! I have been reminding that this is not now intended to be a biography, but an event.—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 17:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only one incident doesn't make someone so notable for an article...the creator seems to have made the article solely based on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Strike Σagle 13:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above regarding this. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't be changing my vote anyway... Strike Σagle 13:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who has asked you for it. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any person with a little bit of commonsense would have understood the intent of your above comment..I am unaware about you though... Strike Σagle 13:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking you to read my reply to your "oppose". Faizan -Let's talk! 14:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose my first reply was intended for the same...you couldn't get it... Strike Σagle 14:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear case of WP:BLP1E. Number 57 15:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As of now it's a clear case of WP:BLP1E. An article about the subject can be recreated if he becomes notable in due course of time. Salih (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Here is the lead sentence from [1], "SRINAGAR: Pakistan sought of Friday immediate transfer of the prisoner who had suffered serious head injuries after being attacked in an Indian jail in apparent tit-for-tat violence following the death of an Indian inmate Sarabjit Singh in Pakistan."  Unscintillating (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Merge to Sarabjit Singh.  The attack on the topic is an event which is wp:prominent in the context of a notable individual.  This event is already covered in the lede of Sarabjit Singh, and a new section there would fit well to support the lede.  Note that the lead sentence of the news article from Srinagar does not mention the topic by name, which indicates that at this point the world at large has little or no interest in a biography of this individual.  As per various policies, deletion is not the solution for non-notable topics that are already covered in the encyclopedia, and that include WP:RS.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep due to changing notability of topic and agree with rename as per Robofish.  The event also needs to be covered at Sarabjit Singh.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the lead of Sarabjit Singh does not contain enough info about Sanaullah, and the text in the lower sections was removed here, so it's necessary to Keep the article, It returns more than 0.2 million results from Google, and thus notability is evident. Please review! Faizan -Let's talk! 08:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the article at the time of my comment.  The lede says, "On 3 May, in what was thought to be a tit-for-tat assault, a Pakistani prisoner in a jail in Jammu, India, was attacked by Indian inmates, suffering serious head injuries, and was reported to be in critical condition."  Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have examined the diff which you cite.  It is a bad edit, one that removed a citation on a topic nominated for deletion by the same editor.  A bot found the edit and restored the citation.  It is also a bad edit IMO because it removed information on a topic nominated for deletion by the same editor.  We need better from AfD nominators.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name of the section removed in the diff cited was "Attack on Pakistani prisoner in Jammu".  I agree with this name, it makes it clear that the section is an event and not a biography.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GHITS are not how we define wp:notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then are not 0.2 million results enough for the notability of Sanaullah Haq? Faizan -Let's talk! 08:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two results were mentioned to give a comparison. Quoting from WP:GHITS: WP:BIO, for instance, specifically states, Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics. It may also be noted that using Google News, the following results are obtained: Sarabjit Singh = [132,000]; Sanaullah Haq = [4020] results. Thanks. Ralfan (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was also using them for comparison, and keep it on note that they were cited by you first. Faizan -Let's talk! 11:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments below. I stand by my vote. Thanks. Ralfan (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sarabjit SinghThis incident definitely needs inclusion in the main article on Sarabjit but a separate article seems overkill.Breezeplushy (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet of User:Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sarabjit Singh if current sources indicate that "apparent tit-for-tat" can be substantiated. I'd like to at least see the cause for suspicion expounded upon. Heavily polarized Pakistan/India relations cause me to view early conclusions with skepticism. --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merging to Sarabjit Singh. Much of the details in this article is not appropriate in a biography about another person. In general, merging biographies is seldom a good idea. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to extended comment further down. Iselilja (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 09:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article of Sanaullah is itself notable, it returned 0.2 million results from Google, despite comparison with Sarabjit Singh, isn't the article notable? Secondly it gave rise to many conflicts in Pakistan, Azad Kashmir, and a drawback for India-Pakistan relations. So just asking you people for a review. Faizan -Let's talk! 09:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The incident occured in the backdrop of the Sarabjit Singh incident and drew mass attention in the media, especially with regard to India-Pakistan relations post-Sarabjit's death. There is extensive coverage on the subject which makes it satisfy WP:GNG. Moreover, the affair has been politically charged and has reached the level where diplomats have been concerned with it. This is no doubt a notable article that needs to be kept. Mar4d (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article was viewed 345 times on the very first day of its creation. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has the number of views got anything to do with whether it does not deserve this discussion? Ralfan (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NO, the article itself is relevant and notable. It is a popular topic on Google and Wikipedia, with 0.2 million views on Google. Secondly info about Sanaullah Haq was removed from Sarabjit Singh, so the article is justified. Please! Review your comment! Faizan -Let's talk! 10:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how and why WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies here or is relevant. They are two linked, but separate incidents that have recieve d extensive coverage and deserve articles based on WP:GNG. We look at what media coverage tells us about the subject, not individual Wikipedians' perceptions. Mar4d (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at media coverage, and it isn't extensive enough to warrant an independent article. Aside from other stuff existing, there isn't a valid reason to keep this article. If some editors want to keep repeating "the coverage is extensive, the coverage is extensive" when it clearly isn't then they're free to do so but my comment requires no reveiw. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When we say "the coverage is extensive, the coverage is extensive" we say it with Reference, You should also have a reference, otherwise it would become a case like "I don't like this article". Faizan -Let's talk! 11:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That link lead me directly to Google's main page. Not that I didn't look at what you posted above. You have proof of being mentioned in the media. not of significant coverage. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do get the impression that this story has significant coverage and also has implications for the India/Pakistan relationship. In addition to national news, BBC now covers the story under the headline: Sanaullah Ranjay: Pakistan's top diplomat visits India hospital. AP/New York Times has also covered the story, saying in one piece "The assault on Mr. Ranjay is yet another blow to the tense diplomatic relations between India and neighboring Pakistan." A protest march in Kashmir has been reported in news. My suggestion would be to Keep and Rename to "Attack on Sanullah Ranjay" or something like that, making it into an event article rather than a biography. I oppose Merging to Sarabjit Singh. Much of the details in this article is not appropriate in a biography about another person. In general, merging biographies is seldom a good idea. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Update: I choose to stay neutral on whether the coverage is extensive enough to warrant an article. But if the article is kept it should be renamed and made into an article about an event. - And with this, I am out of here. Iselilja (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Thanks! So The article should be kept and renamed to "Sanaullah Ranjey", There is already a redirect too for Sanaullah Haq at Sanaullah Ranjay. Faizan -Let's talk! 11:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article in my view should be renamed to the the "Attack on Sanaullah Ranjey" or something else that covers the attack and reactions to it, but it should not be a biography on Sanaullah because he appears to only be notable as a crime victim and people solely known as crime victims should seldom have an ordinary biography. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Agreed! Make your stance in "bold text"! Faizan -Let's talk! 12:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep:I agree to this, too. The article should be kept and the solution could be renaming the article intead of wiping it out of existence or merging with Sarabjeet. It is not a biography of Sanaullah, so the suggestion given by Iselilja is quite plausible. The event IS quite notable, too. As more facts are revealed, this article has great chances of being expanded into a useful article. I opine and therefore request that this article be kept. —Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 13:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Also comparing this man with Sarabjit Singh is completely wrong, as a number of incidents involving Singh had been a major news in Indian media (don't know about Pakistani media, but they have been also covering him to at least a decent limit). ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one is comparing them. Both of them are itself notable. Even the article of Snaullah returns 0.2 million search results, with hundreds of views at Wikipedia too, and the article should be kept. See the above comments too for more info. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS is only what I have to say. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG. Mar4d (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E, and the clearest case of it I have ever seen. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BLPIE issue can be avoided by simply renaming the article to the "Attack on Saunullah" or similar, and thus making it into an article about an event and not a biography. It would be similar to the Killing of Trayvon Martin and numerous other murder cases. And this case in question probably have more political/societal impact than many murder/criminal cases on Wikipedia. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You think we should have an article on a guy who got shived in prison? Nope, delete or redirect. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah.... Agreed with Iselilja... I think the same! Faizan -Let's talk! 13:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing could be said about Trayvon Martin. Just another teenager being shot as a suspected criminal. But in both cases, the criminal act came to symbolize something other and more. There have been protests over this in Kashmir. And there are substansial coverage in reliable sources, in India/Pakistan, and also mentions in AFP, New York Times and BBC, which indicates that these leading news organizations have found the incident and the reaction to it notable. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is perfectly O.K. Just needs a rename. The event is quite notable, as I have already said. That is it. —Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 14:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there who is considering this the best case of BLP1E! This rule does not apply here, as Sanaullah is almost dead now. Another point, that this is not a biography, but is more about an incident. Your biggest pillar which supported you is now invalid. Hope this is clear.—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 14:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Come on guys. Articles about deaths of people are create only when the death attracted extreme media coverage. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This story is just part of an unending list of murders of Indian / Pakistani prisoners in the others' jail, which again is a subset of Atrocities on Indian and Pakistani prisoners in the others jail (pls see [| 1], [| 2|], [| 3], [| 4], [| 5] etc.). The prisoners go by different names. e.g. Check out [Chamel Singh] with 0.2 million results. Would you deem this as notable? Moreover, notability cannot be measured merely by using google search results. ["punk music" + china] has 0.55 million results. Do you think it is notable? Thanks. Ralfan (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then do not measure it with the number of google results... Just see that it did gain media attention for quite sometime. This does make it noteable. It was not the incident which you would listen from one ear and then discard it from the other. I do think it is noteable enough to have an article of its own. Regards.—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 17:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friend, Wikipedia has policies and we go by them. Please refer to WP:VICTIM, which states "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size". Opinions need to be based on the policies. Thanks. Ralfan (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is true and no doubt, we are bound to follow it, but I do not think Sarabjeet is the appropriate article to contain this one. It gives us a biography of Sarabjeet and isn’t apt for containing the event of the death of a different person. That is what I mean when I say not to merge it into Sarabjeet. And as the supposed forerunner of the event is notable, then this ought to have a seperate article, too.—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 18:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then, my good friend, please read the remaining part of WP:VICTIM, which states: Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:

For victims, and those wrongly convicted of crime

  1. The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.. I hope this claries. Please also read WP:EVENT carefully. Thanks. Ralfan (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He still ought to have an article? Did you even consider what Ralfan quoted from the relevant policy? Honestly, the hysterical, frantic responses of those editors who want to keep this article to any person who supports deletion displayes, if not a COI, a sure lack of objectivity. There's way too much passion involved with this subject for much of this to be taken as a serious, policy-based, editorially-minded view. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You totally and completely misunderstood me. It is not passion which is driving me. No doubt, Sanaullah himself doesn’t deserve an article of his own (the policy you state gives the rules for creating an article about the person). Now, see the alternative (WP:BIO1E). He can have an article about the event of his death. I will repeat my assertion here that it is notable enough (it has a big role in determining Indo-Pak relations). It is also supposed to be related to the even bigger event of Sarabjeet’s death. It that not significant enough?—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 05:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why they are insisting ton the deletion of the article. Even now, many Asian Channels are giving full coverage to Sanaullah HAq, over his failing condition, Isn't it adequate? Syed Wamiq is absolutely right, The matter of Sanaullah Haq will give rise to many conflicts now, even now, the Pakistani and Indian forces have clashed at Kashmir, see references here and here. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of these two sources report anything about Sanaullah or his condition. Per WP:YESPOV, please avoid stating opinions as facts. Please also read WP:BALL. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses ... Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate Thanks. 15:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
No one other than Pak Army/ISI chief can tell if Haq's death will give birth to military tensions. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More grasping at straws here while blatantly ignoring site policy. The argument that his death deserves a separate article because it's all over Asian channels right now violates WP:NOTNEWS. On almost every point, those of us who support deletion have shown again and again why this article shouldn't exist and those who want to keep it just search for another justification. It's a pretty clear case of people who have already made up their minds (read: already stopped being objective) and are just looking for anything to throw out there in order to keep this article alive. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is in accordance with WP:INDEPTH, has received signifant coverage from the media all over. It should be kept, if not, then atleast as an event.]
An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. Faizan -Let's talk! 11:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Hey! Come on, tell me which of my statements were *not objective*? You said we are catching at a straw, but you are catching at every policy you find which may attack us and we are just telling you that the article is already immune to that new poison you’ve got. That is just because of your friend who lives with you in the darkness, where you hunt for new poisons, who lets us know (it shines, doesn’t it?) your wicked plans and we give the required immunity to our patient beforehand (Just kidding, do not mind, the Darkness which shines!). Now as to the dispute, I would like to say that if you think media coverage is not enough for the event to make it notable, leave it. Just think of its forerunner and the possible consequences in the long run. Are they not noteworthy? Don’t they make this event notable, too? Now, come on, you tell me why is this event not notable or is unimportant? (I am asking every opponent user) So that the not notable or not news policies may be applied?—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 13:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You guys can repeat "it's notable, it has extensive coverage" as much as you want; anyone reviewing this will simply need to sift through all the comments and straw-grasping to see that. The aptness of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is very apparent here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is the new policy apt here, then?—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 03:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Syed! It seems that we are beating Dead Horses. Faizan -Let's talk! 07:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely...—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 10:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well guys, this is an well-written article with sufficient references. Additionally, the topic has its importance to people of Indian subcontinent. Guys advocating for deletion appears not to be rooted in good faith. --AsceticRosé 07:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Faizan -Let's talk! 07:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cent percent agreed!!—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 10:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename Death of Sanaullah Haq: This article has been improved since it was first proposed for deletion. The event of his death has WP:SIGCOV. Wikipedia titles do have a way to solve some of the controversy above when there is doubt above bio/event and that is to use "death", "murder", "disappearance", etc. "Attack" is not normally used for individuals. I think "Death of ..." is most appropriate. The lead, however, should be tweaked to communicate the point made above about its relevance to India-Pakistan relations (sources above).Crtew (talk) 05:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Oppose Rename, Yeah, it has been improved, and it should be kept, but not renamed. If it's renamed, then "Death" is not the correct option, It should be like "Attack", "Murder" or "Assasination". Faizan -Let's talk! 06:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given his death today has attracted significant international interest and also that Reuters reports that the bombing he committed in the 1990s killed ten people see [2]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This can be kept as a biography too, cent percent agreed. Faizan -Let's talk! 06:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article should be deleted because it is based on only one event in the life of the person and hence is neither biographical nor complete. It only tells about how the prisoner was attacked and how he died and the so called political aftermath. It looks like a political commentary than a proper article. This is certainly not a biographical article and it does not discuss anything apart from his death. It seems like a fabricated article being pushed to exist and appears very poor. Rahulchic (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Never heard of this guy before he was attacked in the prison. This is only an event. I don't see much substance in this article to be considered as a biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.106.50 (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep and Rename to "Assasination of Sanaullah Haq" Has gathered notable coverage in the International media even he was died today and so the article should be kept. 86.99.140.141 (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete NN one-off, nothing useful to be known here. At most, two lines in Sarabjit Singh's article.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-part of an international incident. If things calm down, consider moving in Sarabjut Singh's article!V. Joe (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep:It is not the case that the event is significant...; Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals. Does not fall under BLP1E, LOCALFAME, WP:IINFO, etc etc. Come on, there is just too much coverage of this event (local, national, regional, international). The event was prominent enough to gather wide reactions from 2 governments. It is not 'indiscriminate collection of information'. He is neither living nor low profile (BLP1E). Yes the event probably started due to Sarabjit incident (please note proper investigation has not been concluded) but the murder has had a strong impact on its own (strain relations as now both sides were invovled, travel advisory by Pakistan due to security concerns), therefore not OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The article does require more info that is available e.g reason for arrest, reactions of people and Govt, plea for release by Govt etc. Samar Talk 18:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This event happened due to the Sarabjit Murder incident,so considering it , 2 lines can be added in the Sarabjit Murder incident, no need to have a different page for it.& to add to this point, he was not famous earlier nor was he convicted to death & then pardoned later like Sarabjit. If Sanaullah had not died, he would have been like any other imprisoned person.Yohannvt (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
he was not famous earlier nor was he convicted to death & then pardoned later like Sarabjit - That is false. Sarabjit was never given any presidential pardon. That was for Surjeet Singh, another Indian detainee. Just for the record. Mar4d (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
& then pardoned later like Sarabjit - Sorry for giving wrong information, got confused between Sarabjit & Surjeet singh, but nonetheless Bollywood actor Salman Khan came out in favour of Sarabjit Singh's release, which makes him a notable person at least in the Indian Media unlike Sanaullah where noone knew about him till he died.Yohannvt (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I am not saying he was famous before, yes the attack and subsequent murder put the incidence in headlines, but the impact of the incidence cannot be ignored just like in Sarabjit case. It involved high level officials from both sides and resulted in increased tensions which was enough to cause travel concerns. If, and there is a big IF, the two articles are to be merged, it should be put under a combined title (Pak-India prisoner incidence...I can't think of anything creative right now). Having said that, I am not in favor of the merge. Samar Talk 06:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although these have nothing to do with this AFD, still just for the record, Mar4d, the fact is in June 2012, both Pakistani and International media (including BBC) reported President Asif Ali Zardari signed a document sent by the interior ministry of Pakistan commuting Sarabjit's death sentence to life in prison[3]. The Indian foreign minister even issued a statement of appreciation to Islamabad for the gesture.[4]
    There was a huge controversy whether or not Pakistan's security agencies pressured the government to reverse course.[www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18595839] There was also a controversy about his "conversion to Islam". All these were while Sarabjit singh was alive. He was notable even before his death, unlike Sanaullah Haq. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I do not see the reasons to be deleted the article while there are reliable sources that support subject's notability.Justice007 (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— 67.241.132.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete The decedent's offense is not shown, there is no indication that the offense is notable, the victim is not identified as notable, that there was a media circus around the trial, or hat the decedent had done something notable at any time. Sure, if it becomes a huge case of diplomatic concern, the article becomes relevant -- after it is revived.

Death in prison often comes from a murderous attack by a fellow inmate. No notability -- no article.Pbrower2a (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: BLP1E does not apply here anymore, he is not a living person. Samar Talk 06:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Case covered by multiple notable sources. passes WP:GNG and CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to Death of Sanaullah Haq. It's somewhat difficult to distinguish this case from the Sarabjeet Singh one and assess it in its own right, but the fact that the government of Pakistan commented on the death suggests it is notable. However, it seems it's the event of his death that's notable, rather than the person himself; this is really an article on a news story rather than a biography, so it should be renamed accordingly. Robofish (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Averroist 08:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why??? Strike Σagle 12:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Death of ... has nothing to do with memorial. It is a way to title articles where the death plays an important part of the article. This topic is not excluded from Wikipedia -- a common mistake that Wikipedians in AfD make.Crtew (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I humbly disagree. The person here has become notable only in one context (i.e. his death/murder) I dare say that the phenomenon of murder of terror-convict in a prison is highly common in Indian Subcontinent. Now, if we were to write articles about every published story about prisoners that died in foreign prison we would perhaps run out of time and space for other more significant articles. It's not polite to say that somebody's death is insignificant but it is sadly the truth; it is not a historically unique event. There are literally hundreds of similar stories. What I mean is his death in itself isn't that much significant, it is only significant in the context of recent escalation of animosity following the brutal murder of Sarabjit Singh.
I mean, who knew about that terrorist Sanaullah before the Sarabjit Case? Nobody, that proves that he is famous for only one event and that is his murder. I like what Ralfan wrote above, "This story is just part of an unending list of murders of Indian / Pakistani prisoners in the others' jail, which again is a subset of Atrocities on Indian and Pakistani prisoners in the others jail". It is a case of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, cheers Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been expanded a lot now, it should be kept now, WP:1E is not justified here. Faizan -Let's talk! 05:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We would have never known about this person if Sarabjit Singh was not killed, at the max we can mention about his death on the article of sarabjit .-sarvajna (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BIO1E; the subject's sole claim to notability is his death. Miniapolis 13:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of course, as the article's sole aim is to put some sort of Pakistani victimization against India's Sarabjit's murder in Pakistan, in the internet world and show innocence on part of Pakistan. --59.177.225.144 (talk) 18:44, 16 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sanaullah_Haq&oldid=1140154522"