Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prasad Shrikant Purohit


 * 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 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings. J04n(talk page) 11:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Prasad Shrikant Purohit

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As per WP:CRIME A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. The details of this person can be added in the article 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings sarvajna (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:CRIME is not applicable in this case, because the subject is not just a "connected" figure in a trial/crime case but rather a chief suspect on whom charges have been levelled, who is arrested and is pending a trial decision. There are plenty of WP:RS discussing this person so WP:GNG is also established.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 08:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes he is a chief suspect, but again he is just notable for his alleged involvement in one terror case, also there has been no conviction. If at all he is proved innocent he will be pushed to oblivion. Till then we can have his details at 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings and after conviction we can have a seperate page --sarvajna (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per note in wp:CRIME: "Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." (Emphasis in original) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On WP:CRIME, the following precedes the note you've quoted above: The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy —such that it is a well-documented historic event . Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role .


 * Again, I'm just quoting policy. It would be important to differentiate between a person who is just "connected" with an event and a person who is a chief suspect of an event though (which the subject of this article is). In terms of the subject of this article, there is wide coverage of the event in reliable sources and there is prominent attention on the individual's particular role in the event.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge - redirect - per Yogesh's claims. The article says, "Lt. Col. Shrikant Prasad Purohit is an Indian Army officer who is accused of charges of terrorism, as the suspected chief architect of the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings" —— I would also like to ask Mar4d where does it say that Purohit is the "chief architect"/"chief suspect"? Until and unless I am met with a satisfactory response and with a source saying such a thing, I am definitely in favour of deletion per WP:PUFFERY, WP:MASK and WP:POV. This is also based on a POV since all the charges are alleged only. Also: US has approached the UN to get a certain Asif Kasmani declared an international terrorist. The reasons cited by US to get Kasmani, a Pakistani national, declared an international terrorist are his involvement in the Samjhauta Express blasts....Kasmani is considered to be the link between Laskar-e-Toiba and Al Qaida. ....This had given Pakistan a handle, claiming that terror events are routinely blamed on it while the "Hindu" angle was ignored. (emphases are my own) I think Mar4d let his POV cloud his judgement. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: As MRT says, the article is not stating the person to be the chief as a fact, so it is NPOV :) - furthermore, it is only covering what the person has been notably accused by RS. This is not a mere connection to the crime, so WP:CRIME does not apply. In anycase, 'delete' is not the right option. If at all the article is to be removed for another reason, merging would be the right decision. Censorship is not the way to go. -- lTopGunl (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Notavote.svg clarity's sake I am going to quote the very first line of CRIME, "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." (my emphases) How is it not applicable? Wikipedia is not a vote. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 16:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * the article is not stating the person to be the chief as a fact, so it is NPOV - Well the existence of the article is itself based on POV that allegations are true and enough. That's what WP:CRIME is telling us unless he is convicted. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 16:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've no idea why you've added "not a vote" template here... because there's a whole lot of points I've raised. And I will not endlessly discuss what I already explained about WP:CRIME that you just reasked - there's no point in asking exactly the same thing again after I just explained it. An "officer who is accused of charges".. the article is not assuming anything.. existence of article...? ...what I said about censorship. And I guess the closer will get both our points without us having to repeatedly say no to each other over and over. -- lTopGunl (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This man is not notable except for one event and the article is talking about allegations of being connected to a crime. It is as clear as black and white. BTW Hitherto, I didn't add a not a vote template. I am in no mood to argue basic policies and guidelines with you. I added the image of Not a vote because it is not a vote. Commenting solely to increase vote-count is not going to be conducive. Consensus doesn't have to be unanimous. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep this article. SMS Let's talk    17:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Summarize, Merge, & Redirect to 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings; subject is primarily knew to the subject's alleged connection to a event. The event is a crime, and the subject of this AfD is alleged to be a perpetrator of the criminal event. Therefore, as the subject is not notable independent of this event, and is not notable only for his military career per WP:SOLDIER, the article should be summarized, merged to the event, and a redirect left in its place.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Summarize, Merge, & Redirect to 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings. If he is convicted then the article has a purpose.Pectoretalk 15:49, 26 February 2013 (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.