Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shafqat Emmanuel and Shagfuta Kausar blasphemy case


 * 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The result was withdrawn by nominator. I will withdraw this, but the article as original written had no encyclopedic value and I will not retract that view. I needs a 100% rewrite. Non-adin closure. Safiel (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Shafqat Emmanuel and Shagfuta Kausar blasphemy case

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD was declined with the explanation of this being a notable topic. However, absent a complete rewrite, this article should be deleted as being a 100% original research and opinion essay. If the article is kept, it should still be nuked to kill the current content and edit history and rewritten as a stub. The current content is entirely unacceptable. In any event, people get ****** over in that part of the world all the time. While a source has been dug up, I don't see what makes these people's tale of woe any different from the multitude of other people who have gotten similarly ****** by a religious government. Safiel (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I take exception to your deletion rationale. In particular, "In any event, people get ****** over in that part of the world all the time" and "I don't see what makes these people's tale of woe any different from the multitude of other people who have gotten similarly ****** by a religious government". This rationale seems pretty unconvincing and racist. AusLondonder (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both above comments, Keep this article, there is definitely room for improvement but subject is notable, as far as I see. Nom's rationale for deletion is neither professional nor NPOV Sheepythemouse (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sorry, but ridiculous and semi-racist rationale for deletion. I see no reason for deletion here.BabbaQ (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as bad faith nomination. Plenty of independent RS, even though the language could really stand to be cleaned up and improved.  It appears to have been written by a non-native English speaker, which is certainly no cause for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have notified the nominator of the discretionary sanctions active in the area, as well as placed an appropriate talk page notice. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2016 (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.