Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilawar


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Dilawar
A victim of torture perhaps, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. The incident is already covered in the article Bagram torture and prisoner abuse and the person is not in and of himself notable for any other incident. As such, this is just a memorial page and should be deleted. Indrian 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BIO, "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." Multiple verifiable sources are cited. Article could be reviewed for suspected POV that lends it to being less encyclopedic and more like a memorial, though. Tag for cleanup perhaps. Scorpiondollprincess 18:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Except he did not achieve either. The scandal was the story not the man. Indrian 18:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he was close enough to the scandal to become notable. Involvement can be voluntary or involuntary. hateless 22:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect (if there is anything to merge). The incident is famous, but the Dilawar himself is not.  However, as his name may be a search term in regards to the incident, a redirect may be worthwhile. Srose  (talk)  19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Scorpiondollprincess. hateless 22:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * keep seems notable, just needs some cleaning up. -Sanbeg 19:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up. If the article is a biography (the test used above), the "Charges" section should go completely, other sections should be rendered into an encyclopedic summary, and there should be a prominent linkage to the main article at Bagram torture and prisoner abuse, not a see also.  If the article is instead on the scandal, it should be merged to that article and left as a redirect.  I think slimming it down to be a biography is appropriate.  The current article is not in good shape.  GRBerry 00:48, 2 August 2006 (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.