Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munir Hussain (business)


 * 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. Consensus here seems to indicate that the article fails short of notability requirements. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Munir Hussain (businessman)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Article appears to be about a marginally notable person, with the only significant coverage relating to one event only. TN X Man 22:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree Tnxman307. What makes this man any different to some of the other people up on Wikipedia e.g. Larry Hryb or Eric Neustadter ? Munir has made a significant contribution to his community and I would argue moreso that some of the others cited on Wiki.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibee1971 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No significant coverage other than the WP:ONEEVENT. It has nothing to do with his contributions to the community or whether there are other articles that may be even less deserving. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Strong Keep Meets notability guidelines per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are lots of stories about this person and this issue. A merge or a retitle may be a possibility if there are BLP concerns, but this is definitely notable and still being reported on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete – For two reasons: First, one event.  This is a classic example of the one event guidelines for non-inclusion here at Wikipedia.  Second, Basic General Notability requirements are not met, in which significant coverage, for more than one event, are required for inclusion here at Wikipedia.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 20:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They're considering changing the laws regarding home invasions as a result of this case. So it's a notable event. The one event guidelines shouldn't be misapplied to eliminate articles on important events and notable persons of significance. There are ongoing legal proceedings, hearings, political discussions etc etc. It's like saying the Iraq War is one event... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - If and when they do change the laws, based on this particular home invasion, I will support a piece here at Wikipedia similar to the article on Megan's Law.  However, if they do not, this is no different than any other home invasion that will happen hundreds of times today around the world.  Would each deserve an article here at Wikipedia?  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 12:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Home invasion rarely (if ever) generate this level of interest, media coverage, or political discourse including proposals to revise legal processes. It's an ongoing issue, so deletion is also premature. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep There is more than one event e.g. "Yesterday [21/12/09] it was revealed the serial criminal was accused of committing more offences after he had recovered. However, he received an absolute discharge for those because he was deemed unfit to plead. The case last night prompted claims that Salem had effectively been given 'a licence to commit crime'." (Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1237632/New-let-brain-damaged-burglar-got-decent-man-sent-jail.html#ixzz0bAW9BrUN). And this home invasion in the UK made the news elsewhere, e.g. in Australia (http://www.theage.com.au/world/british-man-jailed-for-attacking-armed-burglar-20091215-kugg.html), so clearly it is different from other home invasions that happen 100s of times every day around the world. However the article is uninformative about the case and most of the information about Munir Hussain is not relevant; it is not the home invasion but the judge's sentencing which is noteworthy. Aarghdvaark (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I've updated the article as I suggested - sigh Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Classic example of WP:BLP1E. 2 says you, says two 18:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, fairly obviously WP:BLP1E. "single event" can refer to a single chain of events, not just a moment; the fact that there is other crap happening around a single event does not change its nature. Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The BLPE1E guidelines states that "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources."
 * Clearly this is a significant event and the individual's role is substantial. So it does not fall under the BLP1E guideline. It's already been in the news for weeks, it's a political and legal issue, and deleting the article is grossly premature. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Biography of Munir Hussain (businessman) or Munir Hussain's experience of a burglary
This went off-line - but I think the discussion really belongs here so I've pasted it below. Comments? Aarghdvaark (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Aargh, I reverted your additions to Munir Hussain. It seems like those belong in an article about the events and trials, not in a biography. But I'm happy to discuss or we can get other input on it. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is some discussion about deleting this person's entry. As far as his personal biography goes, although he is a successful businessman and a family man this is not unusual in itself. What is noteworthy about him is the armed home invasion he suffered and the toll he took on one of the intruders. Someone looking on Wikipedia for "Munir Hussain" is going to be looking for information about that event and its consequences, not that Munir was awarded some award, member of this or that, etc.


 * There are biographies on Wikipedia of people who have become important, and in those cases what school they went to may well be of interest (David Cameron went to Eton College I see), but many people only have their 15 minutes of fame - although I bet Munir wishes it hadn't happened to him. These people are sometimes mentioned in passing in other articles, but in this case it would be difficult to locate a suitable article? "UK home invasions" wouldn't really work?


 * The problem is that Munir Hussain's name has been associated with this particular event. So the article either has to be a biography of Munir Hussain, which would be of little interest to anyone except his family and I would see little point in keeping it in Wikipedia, or about the event - which is important and I think should be in Wikipedia. What do you think the article should be titled? Aarghdvaark (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How about having an article on Home invasion in Britain discussing the case and the legal issues being discussed regarding victims of burglary, vigilantism and whatever other issues are involved? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that would be more like a newspaper article about the state of the nation and the rights of citizens v. law-breakers, just bringing in such events as the home invasion to support a POV. But have a look at the recent case of Akmal Shaikh. I think that shows what I was talking about - there is only enough biography about Akmal to show the relevance of the issue of his state of mind to the court case. It doesn't get listed as an article "Barbaric Chinese Court Practices" or "Chinese executions of foreigners".
 * I agree about ages changing :) Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2009 (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.