Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno


 * 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   merge to Caning in Malaysia. In this case, the arguments for deletion, though less in number, make far stronger arguments. Some of the arguments ("notability is self-evident", "We already have articles on people who are only known for being sentenced to be caned"), come straight out of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The keep side fails to address the issues raised by the delete side, in particular WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. Redirecting this as it is a valid search term, and because perhaps some information could be salvaged. NW ( Talk ) 15:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Still no claim of notability. My speedy was declined. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Do a search using any search engine, you will find a large number of articles, although I accept this could be better integrated into the article given time. PatGallacher (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Explain why she might meet WP:BIO, or some other notability guideline.  Also see WP:BLP1E.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. She would be the first woman to be caned under Sharia law in Malaysia in recent years. Amnesty International have called for the sentence not to be carried out. MartinL63 (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the external page counter, this page had 388 hits in August 2009, suggesting that it has attracted some interest. PatGallacher (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That has neither relevance to notability nor necessarily interest; they could be coming from HERE. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And with all due respect to Amnesty International, they call for something or other every day. We don't usually produce an article about an individual just because of that. Alarics (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. She hasn't even been caned yet. This article is premature. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The thing may yet not happen at all. If it does, we can decide whether she is notable. I would have thought not, myself. The case can surely be covered under Caning in Malaysia and Sharia law. The individual woman herself is not really the subject of interest. Did somebody produce a Wikipedia article for the first individuals to be caned when Indonesia started doing this a couple of years ago? I doubt it. Alarics (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I see it has just been announced that the authorities have now put it off until after Ramadan. The story is changing by the hour. It's not an encyclopaedia's job to try to keep abreast of breaking news. That's what the news media are for. Alarics (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.


 * Keep. It focus a lot on the issue of Malaysian legislative processes which concenrs international interest. Why then, are so many international press reporting on the issue? Take Seung-Hui Cho as an example. Not so much on the person, but the shooting spree. Mr Tan (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but more imptantly, this article is getting thousands of views, and we need to put WP's best face forward. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could I now suggest we do a speedy keep on this. It's clear from the external links and elsewhere that this case has received considerable third party attention.  Hits have gone through the roof, over 7000 at the last count.  We already have articles on people who are only known for being sentenced to be caned: Lubna al-Hussein, Michael P. Fay, Sarah Balabagan. PatGallacher (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Insofar as "We already have articles on people who are only known for being sentenced to be caned", we quite likely also have a problem, especially where the other stuff pertains to living individuals. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On further investigation, this is more a case for WP:SNOW than a speedy keep, i.e. this article has not a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted. PatGallacher (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On futher rational consideration, "Keep" is extermly improbable. Arguments based on guidelines suggest delete or merge (somewhere).  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect (selectively) to Caning in Malaysia. Fails WP:ONEEVENT, but seems a relatively prominent illustration of the larger topic. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep notability is self-evident. 96.255.252.189 (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All that is "self-evident" so far is that the prospect of this caning has caught the salacious interest of the news media. If, as looks increasingly likely, the punishment is never in fact carried out, the whole thing will be rapidly forgotten, and then where shall we be? An encyclopaedia should be taking a much longer view than the short-term focus of the daily press. Alarics (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear about the arguments, the notability is obvious. All you have to do to show that is provide two reliable articles on the subject.  You're argument is about WP:NOT which has special rules for single events in the news.  Whether that applies is a matter of opinion, but notability is "self-evident" or whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact. (.....) A violent crime, sensationalized event or accidental death may be notable enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage in the news, but not be of encyclopedic importance." -- Alarics (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply. I agree with News articles, which says:
 * 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.