Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Datchinamurthy Kataiah


 * 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. Unanimous & policy based support to keep. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Datchinamurthy Kataiah

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

At this rate, every single death row individual in Singapore will be getting his own article. This, like the other articles, is an extreme example of WP:NOTNEWS. Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime,  and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This is incredibly well sourced and clearly meets GNG. Why shouldn't every death row prisoner in the world with this much press have an article? This has zero to do with NOTNEWS since the coverage spans eleven years. Consequently there's no valid deletion criterion stated. Central and Adams (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Very well sourced article, meets WP:GNG. I see no reason to remove. Skipple   ☎  20:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep because Datchinamurthy's case is clearly notable and he has been consistently attracting attention since his death sentence was passed on him by the courts (especially during the final years leading up to his execution). There was no reason to remove his article since he has a lot of coverage. --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly notable from sources available (and also not merely accused). But articles about crimes and criminals especially should likely be evalutated critically in regards to WP:BLP, e.g. stating the names of a subject's sisters with no relevancy to the article otherwise is not acceptable, I think. --LordPeterII (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2022 (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.