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. Most arguments to delete are rooted in WP:NOTNEWS, which I find to have been thoroughly rebutted by the demonstrated lasting impact of the event. K.e.coffman points out that a similar incident involving a Western serviceman would be uncontroversially considered notable, but there's no need for hypotheticals here -- just look at Murder of Lee Rigby. Even if the article was a borderline case (and I don't believe it to be) we'd do well to err on the side of avoiding systemic bias in evaluating the English language coverage of the subject. A Train^talk 09:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beheading of Bhausaheb Maruti Talekar[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single event in one of the worlds many intractable disputes. I don't think its worth an article because I'm sure the information could be more usefully included elsewhere, porobably in Kashmir conflict. TheLongTone (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:If the information in the article is more usefully included elsewhere, the proper course of action would be a WP:MERGE suggestion and not a deletion request. But surely, that doesnt apply here. Nor does any of the other listed reasons for deletion (WP:DEL-REASON). A "single event in one of the worlds many interactable disputes" can have a standalone article if it meets WP:GNG and WP:N(E). The article meets the above criteria. --Drajay1976 (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Looks like nominator didn't perform WP:BEFORE, otherwise he could have refrained from using terms like, "intraceable" and "1event notability". Substantial coverage of event after more than a decade by national mainstream sources easily establish WP:GNG and help topic meet WP:NEVENT. I've listed some coverage of the event below, which substantiates that the event has WP:INDEPTH, WP:DIVERSE, WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.

Indian Express, published in 2009

Times of India2, 2013

My Digital Lfc, 2016

There must be many more coverage than listed above. Anup [Talk] 18:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The accusations could be easily covered in Ilyas Kashmiri. Mar4d (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mar4d: What part of wp:notnews do you think this topic meets? It'd be helpful to understand your rationale if you cite one and possibly elaborate a bit. Anup [Talk] 21:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Ilyas Kashmiri is probably a more suitable article. The incident happened, but its only notability seems to be from the person said to have committed the attrocity. There is no evidence from the content, or (based on a quick glance) sources that something further happened after the act. Did anything change militarily, did notable politicians made statements, condemnations, etc., were international bodies approached? As an example of what would be needed for it to be kept, see the beheading of Kyaram Sloyan. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Pervez Musharraf awarded the terrorist who beheaded this Indian soldier. As the beheading took place 16 years ago, when internet age in India/Pakistan was still at early stage, it's difficult to find online sources. Bulletproof Batman (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC) -- This user is a sockpuppet.[reply]

*Delete WP:NOTNEWS TouristerMan (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Confirmed sock. Anup [Talk] 21:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentUser:TouristerMan and User:Mar4d have cited WP:NOTNEWS as the reason why this article should be deleted. That needs discussion. In my opinion, the article doesnt meet any of the criteria in the policy. 1) It is not original reporting. 2) It is not routine news reporting. It is an event which meets the criteria under WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. 3) The article is about an event which has enduring notability. Not about the individual. So it does not match "Who's Who". 4) It is not a diary!!! The individual doesnt have notability. It is an article about the notable event. User:Tiptoethrutheminefield's argument that the content can be merged with Ilyas Kashmiri may have merit (I am reserving my opinion). But should that be a reason to delete this article either way? The proper thing to do would be to keep the article and then start a merger discussion in the talk page like usual!! Kyaram Sloyan is an article about an idividual who has notability. Here the article is about an event, so the parallel is not exact. The article can develop into one about the individual. --Drajay1976 (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for pointing out another article that probably does not meet WP:N. I have nominated it for deletion. Thanks. EricSerge (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The death of any soldier in conflict is a tragedy for his family, his unit, and his community. Most of these deaths do not rise to the level of encyclopedic inclusion. It is clear that WP:BIO1E precludes this article being a simple biography since this one does not pass the bar set by that policy and precedent. For inclusion as an event, this article has not demonstrated a lasting effect nor can it be said to have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. EricSerge (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pls see below // ~~Delete~~ Original comment: per WP:BIO1E; this event, however tragic, does not rise to the level of encyclopedic notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm to a great extent confused over deletion rationale provided in here. WP:BIO1E deals with biography of a person notable for a single event; here the topic under discussion is about an "event" not person. The relevant guidelines that could be cited for keep or delete are WP:NEVENT, WP:GNG & WP:NOT. BIO1E doesn't make sense. It happened in 2000, and its continued coverage since then upto this year 2016, if doesn't prove lasting effect I'm not sure what would. Anup [Talk] 10:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree with EricSerge's assessment that the individual killed doesnt meet WP:BIO1E. Strongly disagree with his statement that the article has not demostrated a lasting effect. Anup has pointed out that the media interest in the incident has not died out even after 16 years. This was the first instance of beheading in LOC. This has spawned a lot of such incidents. In July 28 2011, Indian soldiers are alleged to have beheaded five Pakistani soldiers inside Pakistan. I am in the process of collecting information on that to write another article (or to be merged together to form an article about beheadings in the India-Pakistan LOC. Pakistan had also done a beheading. K.e.coffman has not explained why the article doesnt have encyclopedic notablity. It meets WP:GNG and WP:N(E)!!! What else is needed? An article cannot be expected to conform to policies that exists only in the minds of editors!!!! --Drajay1976 (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drajay1976: So there is a demonstrated link, that can be cited in reliable sources, that this beheading is linked to the other subsequent beheadings? I will agree that barbarism likely breeds further barbarism but we aren't being philosophical about about the horrors of war in this discussion. EricSerge (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EricSerge:, I have expanded the article to include a spate of decapitations which followed this incident with sources in the "Aftermath" section. This was the first known case of beheading of a soldier and taking the head as a trophy in Kashmir. This incident took place in 2000. Incidents/allegations of other tit-for-tat beheadings have been regular after that. 18 September 2003, 19 June 2008, 28 July 2011, 30 August 2011 and 8 January 2013!!! There are sources (added as references) which link all these cross border raids. --Drajay1976 (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage; tragic, buut single, event with no long term consequences. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Have noticed the dates of news coverage? This event happened in 2000. Newspaper articles are written about it after a decade!! WP:PERSISTENCE is definitely there. Major news magazines such as Indian Express have given in depth coverage to the event, describing the assault in detail, discussing the fate of his family and discussing the inquiry against his commanding officer. So WP:DEPTH is definitely there. --Drajay1976 (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This matter was widely discussed in both countries and internationally and was covered by all major newspapers and books. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided -- The article has been improved but I'm still not sure whether this overcomes BIO1E or not. On the other hand, if an American or British soldier were beheaded in a similar incident, we would not have heard the last of it. So I don't want to create an impression that a soldier's life in another part of the world does not matter as much or did not generate sufficient widespread interest and impact on society. So I'm withdrawing my delete vote, but not voting "keep" just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to be an Asian to formulate an opinion on matter under discussion. Personal experiences, I believe, come under OR and are thus prohibited. I would suggest to take a look at available sources and check it against relevant policy and guidelines. It is just an opinion. (I'm not asking for keep, you can re-instate your delete !vote). Anup [Talk] 00:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good sources, and overall coverage. has indeed bene discussed widely in both countries and internationally. Book and newspaper sources are available. this covers WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE per the mentioned above reasons.BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The page is one of those hoaxes where one claims, the other denies, Wikipedia is not for hoaxes. The subject is not encyclopedic either. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is notability alone that justifies inclusion or exclusion of a topic. Your argument based on 'hoax' is totally flawed (We have many articles on 'notable' hoaxes as well). Please explain the 'unencyclopedic' thing, I see "substantial" coverage of topic in multiple reliable sources published over a decade. What do you see? Anup [Talk] 21:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Anupmehra:, SheriffIsInTown has rightly struck the vote of Bulletproof Batman as sock vote, but he didn't struck the vote of blocked sockpuppet TouristerMan. Because SheriffIsInTown was supporting the blocked editor in the SPI.

@Touristerman returns: You don't seem to be TouristerMan. You created an account just to leave here a message. Aren't you a WP:DUCK? Anup [Talk] 21:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How delete !votes based on WP:NOTNEWS are not applicable in present case:

WP:NOTNEWS says, 'Wikipedia is not a newspaper' and lists 4 criteria to exclude topics who may meet these. There are:

Original reporting. 'Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories.' - Breaking news do not appear after a decade of an incident (click here).
News reports. 'Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.' - From 2000 to 2016; 16 years, if is not enduring, may be someone tell me what is.
Who's who. 'Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be.' - no one is arguing for a biography, but the "event".
A diary. 'Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are.' - it is about one single event (there are not many).

Those whose !vote is based on wp:notnews should come up with some applicable arguments (probably based on wp:nevent or wp:not or wp:iar). Anup [Talk] 00:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - obviously impactful, but it has too much crufty, undue, soapboxen. I removed a chunk of bunk. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It appears to be an event with a long lasting impact and aftermath. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The event occurred in 2000. Recurrent analysis and interest related to it have lingered on for years and years. I think that this has clearly gone beyond being just a one-off news event, and retaining the article appears to be the right move. Yes, substantial improvement over what we have now is probably required. But AFD nominations aren't ways of cleaning things up. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to significant and sustained coverage in RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. on the basis of lack of impact beyond the two countries involved. cf. Saurabh Kalia which has at least some international press attention.I'f I've missed any here, please tell me. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an extra-judicial killing by soldiers of another nations soldier like this seems notable and impact seems fittingly lasting. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: To my knowledge, there is no policy which stipulates that the impact or press attention needs to be in more than 2 countries. Wiki policy only demands lasting/enduring attention, which the event has. It may have escaped your attention that even a book published by an international publishing house, authored by someone who is a citizen of neither India nor Pakistan has also discussed this event and is there as a reference. --Drajay1976 (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of judgment what criteria to use and how to interpret them, and reasonable people can differ. The general rule that I think we use in practice is outside the area directly concerned. In this case, in produces a reasonable result. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge to Ilyas Kashmiri, the perpetrator. The death of one soldier in an armed conflict, even if widely reported by the media, seems to be a routine occurrence. Sandstein 07:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.