Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanaullah Haq (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 keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Sanaullah Haq
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:LASTING, guy was in the news briefly for getting shived in jail. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - references speak more about this issue as it turned political internationally; it was more than mere news. There are over 40 articles discussing the subject - suggesting it is both wide ranging and notable. StuffandTruth (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It was just a slanging match between India and Pakistan, they happen every day. It was not an international incident at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Those two sentences appear to contradict each other. How is a slanging match between India and Pakistan not an international incident? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG. We don't know if it will be lasting since it just happened a few months ago, however in light of the high amount of national exposure, public demonstrations, and "Sanaullah’s death will further strain Indo-Pak ties" the safe action is to keep for now and wait and see (a year or more). I wouldn't call it an "every day" event, though straining events are nothing new. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No mentions in the news over the last month And only 19,900 hits on a search. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Patience. It takes time for it to be written about in books, movies, work through the courts and political process. While we wait for longer term impact, it makes sense to keep the article given it already passes WP:GNG and had an unusual amount of exposure beyond a typical news event. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: This ONE again? Really? It wasn't too long ago (just last May) that the very same editor brought the first nomination, but now to argue WP:LASTING is really pulling down deep for something. There is NO way to know WP:LASTING one way or the other way until significant time lapse, and so policy wisely suggests, I quote: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards." For the nominator's argument to fly, the nominator would have to logically wait to see if it has been re-analyzed, because we know it had WP:SIGCOV, and ONLY then and after extensive period claim such. Last May is not an extensive amount of time between renominations for this particular argument! The nomination should be dismissed until a better one can be made. Crtew (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Pointless nomination. The article is notable, a slanging match between India and Pakistan is a high profile international incident. Notability quite evident by the reliable sources concerning the subject. Fai  zan  15:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is beginning to look like a snowball based on the weakness of the nomination. Crtew (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't snow close, it will provide reason to DRV. Let it run normal course, it will be a stronger close. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:59, 23 October 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.