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. Per WP:SNOW NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burhan Muzaffar Wani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:BLP1E.

Should be redirected here - 2016 Kashmir unrest.

John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This individual has received substantial coverage in news stories far before he was killed (his death, I presume, is the single event the nominator is referring to). For instance, [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Honestly, you could find a lot more from this custom search. Please do follow WP:BEFORE when nominating something at AfD. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article on this guy since he doesn't deserve publicity, empathy or even any reference in history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.246.49.58 (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Definately Keep. It clearly meets all the criteria of notability. His death, results in a major ongoing event that has achieved enough media attention worldwide. Having said that, subject of this article was also a leader of prominent organization. Please follow WP:BEFORE, before nominating an article at AfD. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 12:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per overwhelming evidence assembled and submitted by Vanamonde93. This is not a new article created in response to subject's death, but one which has existed since September 10, 2015. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Vanamonde93's sources - in addition to the 40 already in the article. Arjayay (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: GNG has meet in here. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 12:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To the nominator, notability has nothing to do with the quality of the person. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To all the participants, i think nominator has some personal agenda or disliking towards this person. So please tell him that this platform is not for personal grudges. If logics, facts and criteria allows this person article then it will remain, regardless to someone likness. Please follow instruction and reasons before nominating an article for deletion.

As i assume and clearly looks that nominator deletion reason is completely based on his personal dislikeness.

So please end this discussion and state the verdict. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 22:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Mention may be made that the article has [as of this writing] interwiki links to corresponding entries in the Hindi Wikipedia, the Eastern Punjabi Wikipedia and the Urdu Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject is notable in its own right and meets WP:GNG. The unrest was a follow-up to his death. Mar4d (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is no doubts that this article's topic is not the matter in question here. It fulfills all of Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Rather than using the threat of deletion to move it toward a specific agenda, those concerned with it should engage in honest discussions, and if needed, third opinion and arbitration. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 07:30, 22 July 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.