Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naresh Shenoy
- 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 delete.
WP:BLPCRIME. We have to be very careful about BLPs associated with criminal acts. Bearcat and TonyBallioni's arguments illuminate exactly why. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
]
Naresh Shenoy
- Naresh Shenoy (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)
dePRODed but the issues were not addressed. Concern was: No clear claims of outstanding significance or importance. Sources are not about the subject and would not support any claims to notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. I was the one who had de-prodded the page. My concern was:
- Maybe the article needs to be rewritten, or the subject needs to be changed to an article about the overall murder, but flat-out deletion feels like a bad idea. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- delete
keep,So far looks like it passes the GNG.Per further looking and bearcat's explanation. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC) - Userfy: although I am dubious of the might be notable, I think it is fair enough to allow the user who wishes to "]
- Delete the relevant policies and guidelines are WP:BLP1E. First, there is no evidence of a conviction: BLPCRIME says that we should not include it in an article for a relatively unknown figure, which this man is. Next, it is very possible that this case has just been dropped since there is no evidence of anything else taking place, which would fit more in lines with the first section of WP:CRIME, which tells us to consider BLP1E. The alleged crime seems to be the only reason he would be notable, so BLP1E would normally have us not consider him notable. If he has been convicted, which I might add we don't have proof of, the second part of CRIME would apply. This man is not renowned or well known, so we can get rid of that prong. The second prong tells us to consider if this had a major impact: it was covered for six months in 2016, and there is no evidence of any coverage since. To me, it fails all the relevant policies and should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)]
- Delete. Nothing claimed in the article as written constitutes a valid pass of either WP:BLPCRIME an otherwise non-notable person does not clear the GNG bar for being alleged to have committed a crime. Wikipedia is one of the most widely read websites in the world, so an article can cause the subject harm if we're not hypervigilant about it — so one of the established rules flowing from that is that if a person wasn't already notable enough for an article independently of the crime allegation, and you thus have to rely on the crime coverage itself as the proof of notability per se, then we require a conviction and not a mere allegation for an article to become appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)]
- 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.