Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukumara Kurup


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 11:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sukumara Kurup

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The only content covers a criminal allegation from which no conviction has yet resulted, so an article about this person would seem like a WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME violation. If the crime itself is notable, then maybe that itself would warrant an article. (Please note I have twice reverted the addition of a large copyright violation, so if the article is kept then that might need to be dealt with by removal of the revisions?) EightTwoThreeFiveOneZeroSevenThreeOne (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, seems notable only for an alleged crime for which a conviction has not yet been secured.--CrystaC (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. Not sure if Murder of Alpesh Chako is notable. Sometimes suspects can be mentioned in those types of articles, but we would need to tread extremely carefully. - Location (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as Sukumara Kurup is a wanted criminal by the police, but the page is not well written or constructive. Hope some editors will make the page good enough for wikipedia standard.Rajeshbieee (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You cannot state that someone is a "wanted criminal" unless they have actually been convicted (please do read WP:BLPCRIME). By the way, this wouldn't be just a retaliation for my nominating a file of yours for deletion and for opining that all your others up for deletion should also be deleted, would it? It seems to be an uncannily short time between those actions of mine and your happening to find this discussion. 823510731 (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article may be re-written in a non-adhering manner to the conviction. There are some notable sources online (1, 2, 3, 4), and if you go for printed ones, then there are plenty in the forms of magazines and newspapers. If I am not wrong, he is been referred in the some of the movies, that are primarily investigative thrillers. — ( harith &middot; discuss ) 09:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to rewrite it in a way that is compliant with WP:BLPCRIME. Until that happens, the current version is the one up for review, and it clearly is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME - the article covers only one thing, and that is a criminal allegation from which no conviction has resulted. 823510731 (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: As you mentioned, all are just allegations of crime, based on suspicions on a missing person. I am unable to contribute to this subject constructively at this juncture as I am not in a position to access the sources that were in the period of my childhood. I hope that more people who are knowledgeable in the subject matter could come into this discussion to resolute. Thanks. — ( harith &middot; discuss ) 03:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Meh. Although the crime has been filmed into a major movie, he hasn't been brought to justice as the alleged plotmaster. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. - notable, sourced good, this is a typical case of AfD not being a clean-up service.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The nomination is based on an assertion that the article violates WP:BLPCRIME, so do you have a policy-based argument against that?" Your "notable, sourced good" is certainly not a policy-based argument against WP:BLPCRIME. 823510731 (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, based on coverage : in news media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A link to a Google search does not represent "coverage", so can you please identify what sources uncovered by that search satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines and are not in violation of WP:BLPCRIME? 823510731 (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It does when the first page of the search links, as this one does, to articles with this accused criminal in the headlines in major national dailies. I saw that and realized that this keep was a slam dunk.  Technically, however, you are correct.  I usually start with a news search as advised in WP:BEFORE.  Here is one,, and it is dispositive.  He has attained national notoriety, coverage continued for years, and two co-conspirators were tried, convicted and sentenced, so it is not the usual BPL violation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The link you gave,, is not a source, it's just another set of Google search results! Please choose some actual sources that you believe support this article and present them individually for us and explain why they overcome WP:BLPCRIME. 823510731 (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Linking to a search showing sources is routine procedure here at AFD. You might want to familiarize yourself with WP:BEFORE and, especially, with WP:GNG.Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I did my BEFORE research, and I think the onus on you now really is to provide specific links to reliable sources that overcome the limits of BLPCRIME - it really is *not* good enough to just say "Here's a Google search, go look for yourself". 823510731 (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:BLPCRIME does not apply when, as in this case, the crime becomes so well known that the suspect is notorious. Ongoing pblicity, including a motion picture, have long lifted him out of the category of "relatvely unknown" people who  are meant to be protected by BLPCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2015 (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.