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. SouthernNights (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Killing_of_Tahir_Naseem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I believe this article is not notable enough to have its own designated Wikipedia page, there have been a total of 4 edits in 3 years and it is a one paragraph long article with no relevance or large media presence. Also a consideration for the children of the named person and family, a permanent internet reminder is not ideal.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete There is not a country in this world where unfortunately these random killings don't occur. This is an encyclopedia and not a local newspaper. WP:NOTEVERYTHING...Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan. This is a mistaken AfD. WP:NOTEVERYTHING does not apply here, neither does consideration for the families -- there's more than enough already on the Internet about this case. This was not your average local case, nor random, but a case that garnered significant WP:SIGCOV in international media for several years. More than enough coverage in a wide number of WP:RS to justify including on Wikipedia at a minimum, or even keeping this article. Longhornsg (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You cannot just say either merge or keep as a way to force your opinion as if there are just those two options screams of arrogance ,deletion is very much a considered option,

  There’s no relevance what so ever these cases happen all of the time and don’t have their own Wikipedia articles otherwise we might aswell make Wikipedia a news site .

  There is media attention about Karen from Gloucester who got drunk and spat at the doorman on the local pub , she doesn’t have a Wikipedia . 2A00:23C7:9DA5:9301:C1A3:8979:3AF9:4D6A (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan. Insight 3 (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:GNG. And hardly a routine case as alleged above. Not many people are murdered in courtrooms because of their religion. The fact that the nominator has never made any other contributions to Wikipedia is also unusual. Few editors start their Wikipedia career by nominating an article for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:EVENT including WP:PERSISTENCE with, for example some coverage in a paper from 2 years after the incident (published in hard copy 3 years after incident) [1] and sigcov in an Oxford University Press book 2 years after the event, [2]. —siroχo 04:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Siroxo's research. Redirecting to List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan seems inappropriate, as the charge appears to be pretextual for a judicial murder. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete - Garbage news not notable enough for a Wikipedia article , one paragraph in length it’s embarrassing . 86.169.18.103 (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a WP:STUB, which is perfectly acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per above besides the article has improved a fair bit. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Improved by you? makes no sense to improve an article to prevent it being deleted . bias, seems like admins got together to try and stop removal. 2A00:23C7:9DA5:9301:C5AB:18BE:FFB:2773 (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please, assume good faith. If you'd like to learn a bit about improving articles nominated for deletion, consider reading WP:HEY. —siroχo 22:57, 1 September 2023 (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.