Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manu Sharma (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 01:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Manu Sharma
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

After the last discussion was closed as no consensus, Stifle, myself and Mukerjee debated this article significantly on the talk page, with Stifle and myself wishing to redirect it to the article on the murder, claiming the subject was notable for only one event and Mukerjee believing Sharma warranted an article of his own. I have no doubt that the case was very significant, but the notability of the subject seems to derive primarily from the case. Note that there are also significant BLP concerns- the article is mostly rather negative, and there are some accusations that have remained unsourced for a while. Take, for instance, this line- "Shortly after he was released on bail in 2003, there was a fight between employees of Blue Ice and some customers; Manu too was reportedly involved, but his name was dropped from the case and the disco’s manager was booked instead." This is unsourced, and implies Sharma's guilt in an unrelated bar-brawl. As discussion on the article talk page got nowhere, this nomination should help settle the issue. J Milburn (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - notability seems quite clearly established --Matilda talk 04:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – The person is notable. ONEEVENT does not apply here as he is the subject of legal and media scrutiny over several years. He is notable enough as deemed by the media events pertaining to his father, a state politician are titled "Manu Sharma's father..." =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   —Matilda talk 05:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect – to Murder of Jessica Lall. The murder was notable as the victim was an young model and murderer was the son of a politician. If the assassination had not turned-out, the murderer would not have become notable through the media events. Therefore, the subject is ONEEVENT and I suggest a redirection is better in this case. --Googlean (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ONEEVNET is a guideline. To be fair, why is a person participating in the 1900 Olympics notable because of a ONEEVENT incident? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX comes to mind and Jimbo Wales comment in this AfD. I echo Wales comment in this case also that He's still notable only for one event. --Googlean (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, I'm not citing WAX. I'm citing the relevance of ONEEVENT that should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. ONEEVENT is often overridden by so many biographies such as the one above. That was the point I was trying to make. If ONEEVENT is to be strictly enforced, we will lost a sizeable chunk of bio articles, namely relating to sports and public office holders. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  10:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I have commented per ONEEVENT policy only. In this case, Manu Sharma was not notable. His father Vinod Sharma is indeed notable. Manu Sharma is notable for a single event only by killing Lall. As per WP:1E that If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. --Googlean (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The one event clause contains this text: ...but essentially remains a low-profile individual... The key words are "low-profile" and "essential". There are over 500 reliable news stories including one just this Saturday. I would be puzzled as to how Sharma can classified as a "low-profile" individual to qualify for the ONEEVENT criteria.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  11:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am still not convinced that he is a notable person and most high profile criminal. The clear fact that he has been in the news does not in itself mean that he should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. All the reliable news stories are merely pointing out that with the single incident that he killed Lall. Anyone who takes a look at the article can see that there is no need of keeping this article as the facts are already covered in the main article. --Googlean (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So on a scale of 1 to 10 how notable do you say he is? To avoid individual replies, I've posted a new thread below. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

On notability criteria: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic. Going through the article, I concede a lot of content is duplicated on the Manu Sharma page that belongs to the Murder of Jessica Lall. Intricate details of the trial must be kept out, and only summarised information on him be left on his biography page.
 * Keep - Notable indeed. There are hundred of murders in India every year. All such murders are not notabe. Only if the murder victim or accused are notable then such murders become notable. The muder victim Jassica Lall was not notable. The involvement of notable Manu Sharma made the murder notable. --Shyamsunder 22:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Murder of Jessica Lall, the one and only incident that made him famous. ONEEVENT applies.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep:Manu Sharma pops up every now and then in the national news. Not a person of low profile. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Stupefyingly pertinent question: Why is this person notable, and why am I the only one who can see that this is a BLP nightmare? This could reasonably be speedied. The conduct of those wishing to keep this has been frankly appalling- claims that the subject is 'just notable' and claims that the actions of those redirecting a BLP nightmare to the article on the event the person is notable for are making some kind of awful, "unilateral" decision when they actually outnumbered those wishing to keep the article? This is fucking abysmal. What is this, the straw that breaks the camel's back? Will someone please just delete this? And whoever described BLP as a "guideline" above really needs to stop taking part in AfDs until they have the first idea of what this is. J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am appalled by your outburst, and the fact that you are letting your emotions get the better of you. Please keep the discussion CIVIL. AFD is not a vote may I remind you, it's a debate. If I do not agree with your viewpoint, accept it instead of making remarks about those who have opposing views. Comment on content, not on the contributor =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't patronise me. Why don't you actually provide some evidence that the subject is notable? No one has done that yet, so I think I should actually remind you that this is not a vote with everyone shouting their own opinion. Please provide some proof that the subject is notable outside of the murder. Alternatively, why don't you deal with the serious BLP problems? J Milburn (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't patronise me. – Is that your reply to ad hominem attacks? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, I refuse to bite your request that I need to provide proof that the person is notable outside the murder. I dispute the ONEVENT criteria being applied for this article. Secondly, Why don't you deal with BLP problems? Please be less vague. People who !vote keep are not obligated to fix issues. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To further the debate
 * Logical deduction:
 * 1) Significant coverage = yes (and undisputed)
 * 2) Independent of the subject = yes (by the media)
 * 3) By reliable sources = yes (media and the Supreme Court Judgement Information System (site is available a google cache, due to link rot of the original)
 * 4) Presumed = open to debate
 * The nominator mentions two BLP concerns, one that it is negatively written and two, it is unsourced. I believe J Milburn is confusing two separate issues here. Articles that have a negative tilt needs to be corrected to conform to the neutral point of view. Similarly, uncited claims should be either removed, or marked with the fact tag so that a source can be added. The two issues should not be confused with the deletion criteria debate here, that is WP:ONEEVENT. =Nichalp   «Talk»=
 * Again, do not patronise me. A negatively written biography is definitely reason to delete, if you believe otherwise, you have completely missed the point of our BLP policy. There are two reasons to delete this page- the fact the subject is notable for only one thing, and the fact this is a BLP nightmare. Could you please just accept that BLP is a policy, and one that we should be following, and stop with your ridiculous Wikilawyering? J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A negatively written biography is definitely reason to delete – 1) I would like to see the page where a negatively written article is the raison d'etre to delete in the deletion criteria. 2) Articles that have already been deleted because of a negatively written viewpoint and 3) Sentences in the Manu Sharma article that you feel are negative. As nominator, the onus is on you to provide the details. As for wikilawering, I'm requesting you to keep the discussion civil. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the biography of living persons policy and the criteria for speedy deletion. I'm not going to dig out examples of articles deleted, but as it is one of the speedy deletion criteria, I don't think I really need to. I have already provided an example of a negative unsourced line, and anyone who looks can see more .Actually, I see it has improved rather a lot. It's still a little negative in character, but is far better. If this AfD closes as a keep, if I can actually stand to keep any commitment to BLP policy/the project, I will remove every offending line and no doubt leave this as a stub. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware that those policy pages exist. I would request you to please be less vague and quote the relavent sections for the benefit of all. If you are alluding to WP:CSD > General > 10 > ...serve no purpose but to disparage their subject, I repectfully disagree with your assessment. The article is now pretty much well cited. As a third party resource, we quote reliable sources; if his name was dragged into a brawl, it's not out of line to report the bare facts. I must say that your replies are most unhelpful. Not only are they vague, but you insist on not coming to the point to help us determine which of the following sentences in the text still need to be flagged as BLP violations. If you continue to avoid quoting the offending text or specific policy, I must conclude that your assessment is purely subjective. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In the news for events outside the murder (this might include content that would be suitable for the Manu Sharma page, but not the Murder of Jessica Lall page. This would lend further support for the fact that we can do with an independent Manu Sharma article that does not fit in the murder page. =Nichalp   «Talk»= 07:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Chikna Jailbirds
 * Homicide conviction punctures legal armour of India’s elite
 * Jessica `killer' is former President Sharma's relative -- Manu Sharma, relative of a former President of India
 * Shivani verdict: Sharma will lose jail comforts – On jail life and the fact that he is writing a book
 * Manu Sharma back in news -- alleged beating up of a DJ
 * It is about the Jessica `killer', who knew Manu Sharma before that? A section on the background of the accused in Jessica lal case is enough. Anyway the current article discusses a lot about the case, than Manu Sharma the person.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is but obvious. An article on a cricketer will discuss cricket, an article on a high-profile murderer will have more content on the act. I have watered the article down to leave it in summary form. If ONEEVENT is applied, it should be applied uniformly across Category:Indian murderers and Category:Murderers by nationality. Also, using the same logic, only serial killers will pass through the sieve of ONEEVENT. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be noted, the model Jessica Lall, like Manu Sharma notable just for the murder, does not an independent article. It is merged into Murder of Jessica Lall.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: The key aspect of this debate not pointed out above is that the murder itself became notable because Manu committed it. Many upcoming models are murdered, but this one became prominent because Manu committed it.

The murder was committed in 1999, but news reports keep coming up. I found this report from day before yesterday on Times of India, which discusses Manu Sharma's jail stay. The Manu Sharma article itself cites another report from Sep 2 08, dealing with the legal effects of his imprisonment. There are some twenty newspaper reports that talk about him in this month of September alone.

If a person keeps appearing with this frequency wouldn't one normally consider him notable - for heaven's sake, it's nine years since the murder, and nearly two years since his conviction even. I mean, how much more notable does a person have to be? The vast majority of LPB's on Wikipedia have far fewer media mentions.

The section on WP:ONEEVENT states:
 * And anyhow, he does not fit the ONEEVENT model.


 * Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

I think we all agree that the subject, a murder, was not larger. It became large because actually Manu, the son of a big political leader, an ex-cabinet minister at the center. In India, children of politicans are deemed potential leaders - Rajiv Gandhi, for one, or for that matter, Indira Gandhi. Manu was far bigger than the news of the murder alone. The ToI article cited above describes him as a "young politician on the make".

I think all of us would agree, even Milgram did in the debate on the Manu Sharma discussion page, that he is not a standard ONEEVENT case - by no means is he a "low profile person" involved in a "larger subject".

Thus a) he does not fit ONEEVENT, and b) he is NOTABLE based on reports. mukerjee (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Redirect or Delete - I have to disagree with Nichalp here. Manu Sharma's only claim to notoriety is that he murdered a bartender. And inexplicably, the murder became national news. For years. Outside of this, he has no claim to fame, notoriety or notability. For an entry in an encyclopedia, apart from notability, there has to be such a thing as 'encyclopedicity' too. Quite simply, every thing or individual that has made the news does not automatically become worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Sarvagnya 01:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * keep ONENEVENT has its limits. In particular, as I often point out John Wilkes Booth would be famous for onevent if he were alive today. This is a similar case(not as extreme as the Booth case but the same principal). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A principal actor in a famous case who's past and future are now open to study (independently of the murder itself). --Regents Park (count the magpies) 20:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The event is not "inexplicable" - had the murderer been a common man it would not have made news. The explication lies in Manu's status. The encyclopedicity of Manu Sharma lies in his legacy (albeit, negative) in the machinations done for him at the trial and in the legal changes that it precipitated.  His notoriety will survive in posterity, hence he is encyclopedic. User:Mukerjee|mukerjee]] (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So too Dhananjoy Chatterjee, John Wilkes Booth and several other murderers. Famous murderers are usually known for a oneevent, unlike serial killers, or celebs who also kill. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For one, I do not think the murder became news just because Manu Sharma committed it. It also had to do with the fact that it happened in the hi-profile Delhi socialite circuit which is frequented by hi-fliers of all stripes and the very fact that it happened in Delhi - which is home to several hi profile media establishments which took it upon themselves to make it national news.
 * For that matter, anything that happens in Delhi makes the news far more easily than something that happens in lesser cities and towns in India. How else would you explain the fact that a nameless, faceless Aarushi could become news?  The main suspect for a long time, after all was the servant (?) - hardly a Manu Sharma with powerful contacts.
 * For that matter, even the Jessica Lal murder shouldnt/wouldnt have been article-worthy - but for the fact that the media took it upon themselves to bestow 'notability' upon it and the unfortunate fact that, we on wikipedia interpret WP:N without any regard to encyclopedicity. It was not like an O J Simpson's allegedly killing a nobody or a nobody killing an Abe Lincoln/Gandhi.  It was a nobody killing a nobody.  Jessica Lal herself was no Abe Lincoln or Gandhi for her murder to deemed inherently notable.
 * Several articles on wikipedia exist solely because editors equate GNews hits with notability. A better yardstick would be to pause for a minute and ponder over whether these articles would ever make it to, say, Enc Britannica.  Not in a million years!  Not even if they didnt have to contend with their traditional constraints of the finite space between their covers.  Like somebody says above, everything newsworthy does not automatically become article-worthy.  Newspapers and 24x7 channels have their own (lesser) standards for 'notability'/newsworthiness.  We are an encyclopedia and we simply cannot import a news house's standards lock, stock and barrel.  What's next?  An article on Aarushi?  Or her servant?
 * Everything from WP:PERF to WP:WAX is cited to get away from the fact that an article might not be encyclopedic. I am not sure how or when that will change, if ever.  It might never change unless we, as a community are able to thrash out a WP:ENCYCLOPEDICITY guideline atleast, if not policy. Sarvagnya 19:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Although I still disagree in principle, I think your reply is more cogent and logical than some of the other responses on this AFD. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarvagya, I completely agree that news hits is not encyclopedicity.  The reason why Manu Sharma is important in the sense that posterity would want to look him up in an encyclopedia, is ultimately not because of the murder per se, but because of the machinations done in the trial, and ultimately, in the impact it had on the Indian legal ethos.  This is his (unfortunate) legacy, and this is why he will be important in posterity.  However, I wasn't citing just news hits. Unlike recent event (e.g Arushi), it is ten years since the crime, and two years since the conviction, and already it is not the spotlight, but the cold eye of posterity that is looking at Manu Sharma.  The articles on him in the last few months - at least 50 in the English press, probably 3x in the vernacular - are not talking about the murder or the trial, but his conviction, despite the machinations, as a harbinger of change, as opening up the possibility that it would not be as easy for the rich and politically connected to escape the processes of law.   Would Encyclopedia Britannica take him? Probably not. But an Encyclopedia Indica would. And Wikipedia needs to encompass both.  mukerjee (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge with Murder of Jessica Lall. Newsworthy, but not articleworthy. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To sum-up my comment – Because of the following reasons why I am totally against keeping this unsuitable article. These are my simple reasons to oppose it: 1) The fact that the subject is notable for only one thing. In short, Manu Sharma is notable just for the murder and he is not a high-profile murderer. 2) The other details such as his jail life and his relation with former president (Nichalp’s wikilawering points) and all those stuffs are unencyclopedic and against our policy, WP:NOT. 3) The article further fails in the following guidelines too: WP:N (note that Wikipedia is not a news source), WP:BLP, WP:1E and WP:NPOV. --Googlean (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you seen an updated draft that addresses POV, BLP and so on? Do have a glance. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Timothy McVeigh also exists in WP (even the surname McVeigh redirects there). --GDibyendu (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX again. As per the article that you have quoted, Timothy McVeigh was convicted of 11 United States federal offenses and was sentenced to death and executed. His act, which killed 168 people, was the deadliest act of terrorism within United States borders until the September 11, 2001 attacks. How the dare you can compare that person with this low-profile criminal?. I feel so pity for you. --Googlean (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you have read WP:CIVIL also; you could have written the last two sentences as "You/We should not compare that person with this low-profile criminal" which would have been CIVIL. --GDibyendu (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I know about CIVIL, but couldn't apply while hurry in typing. --Googlean (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Googlean, do think what you are saying. your argument, if I may rephrase it is:
 * McVeigh is ONEEVENT, but it was a BIG EVENT. Hence it's OK.

So just ONEEVENT'ness is not the issue. I agree. Even Charles Lindbergh was basically one-event. Tim McVeigh is OK not just because it was a BIG EVENT, (which MS's trial also was). In the end we judge a topic's encyclopedicity by its notability. The point about Manu Sharma is really the same. As pointed out many times above, he is extremely well covered, talked about, and relevant, and given his impact on the Indian legal system, he will remain so. Indeed, the following are some more instances, of people who are clearly ONEEVENT, yet they are now notable enough and are clearly encyclopedic:
 * John Hinckley, Jr. and Reagan assassination attempt
 * John Allen Muhammad and Beltway sniper attacks

I think both belong on wikipedia, though they are clearly oneevent. In my opinion however, the following should go:
 * Christine Beatty and Kilpatrick and Beatty text-messaging scandal

The difference between CB and JAM is in their notability. I think those who know abt these things should put an AfD on CB. But the other two are sufficiently notable that they should stay. Dear Googlean, this is precisely what we are saying about Manu. mukerjee (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No intent to create a distraction from your argument, but Charles Lindbergh can hardly be classified as a oneevent case! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 13:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Non notable, as only one event per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the revised version. I accept that the subject had some notoriety prior to the murder. It does appear that the subsequent trial and retrial, both significant events themselves, have an imprint in the public awareness of that community such that the spirit of WP:BIO1E does not properly apply. The BLP aspects (as opposed to notability concerns) are to my mind less important in a case like this where there has been very public discussion of all aspects of the incident, and the worst claim (being a murderer) has been confirmed by a public verdict. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:06, 17 September 2008 (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.