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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Khan (defendant)[edit]

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

A non-notable person per WP:BLP1E. SMS ^Talk 15:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 15:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If and when that prediction of "One Event" proves true, it may be reason for deletion. However, there have already be two separate bursts of press coverage for two events, one for the arrest and one for the relocation, and it's hard to imagine that there will not be further international attention to this instance of the Alice-in-Wonderland mutation of British Commonwealth jurisprudence.
--Jerzy•t 19:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per NOTNEWS and notable. (+I think its illegal to name underage defendents?)Lihaas (talk) 16:49, 11 April 832014 (UTC)
Comment Assertion of a legal issue should not be simply ignored. But we can ignore it until there is a claim more worthy of being taken seriously. Such a claim would have to address both the hint of world-wide jurisdiction and the evidence that Slate, Reuters, HuffPost, NYT NBC News, etc. are non-compliant. (NB: search "defendant", not "~~defendent~~")
--Jerzy•t 19:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theyre outside the jurisdiction fo PakistanLihaas (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A cause celebre that could have legs; if it doesn't a year from now, that'll be the time to delete, perhaps merging some content.
--Jerzy•t 19:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's Crystal Balling it...IF it DOES then it can be recreated. As of today it doesn't have that relevant, as you sayLihaas (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I heard about this case my first reaction was "I hope that no one tries creating a Wikipedia article on this". This person is not notable. This is the most extreme example of violation of the "not news" rule I have seen. Steven Utash is more notable. His beating has caused reaction from people all over Metro-Detroit and a major vigil. It has also lead to five people being accused, at least one with a hate crime.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - wow. Wow. What can one say? We almost always delete a controversy involving children themselves. I just deleted a racial epithet in this discussion, per WP:GRAPEVINE. While there is little chance of any farther harm in this case, our precedents to protect children are very strong, and this could become a mis-used precedent later. I can't believe this has not been speedily deleted already. Wikipedia is not the place to publicize criminal cases, and we are not a soapbox. We also have no reasonable yardstick for determining if this wil become notable. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2014 (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.