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 delete. The first two "keep"s don't make much sense. Sandstein 15:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Mehwish Arshad[edit]

Murder of Mehwish Arshad (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)

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. This is a recent event that is unlikely to endure. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Why else I would create this if it wasn't notable enough. And I dont think so it fails Wikipedia notability issue. And this is certainly not an ordinary incident. It has a sufficient coverage to be included in the wikipedia. Nauriya Lets Talk 19:14 30 June 2018 (UTC).

I'm sure as the creator you think it's notable enough but this is not about your personal opinion but notability guidelines. For an event to be notable it has to have significant non routine coverage over a period of time. All the sources date from a period of a few days as one would expect of any murder. The last source you have added dates from 10 days ago. This suggests that it has no long lasting notability. There are thousands of murders reported every day we only create articles about notable events. This murder is a tragedy but as it says in WP:NEVENT Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:DIVERSE. --39.57.223.207 (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)— 39.57.223.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please be clearer about how this helps show that the subject meets NEVENT. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sad story, but doesn't look like it meets notability requirements at WP:CRIME. Neither the victim nor the perpetrator were notable in their own rights, nor was the crime particularly noteworthy. Also, given that the trial hasn't even taken place and the perpetrator is living and therefore falls under BLP guidelines, the note in WP:CRIME certainly applies: "Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." If this crime turns out to have enduring significance, it may need an article at some point, but at this point it is WP:TOOSOON to assume it will be anything other than an unfortunate criminal event. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RAPID. Fairly wide international coverage for a murder in Pakistan. The question as this point is whether such coverage will be LASTING and SUSTAINED - however we can not evaluate this at this without a crystal ball at this point, hence RAPID.Icewhiz (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think RAPID applies here as it says delay for a few days after the event has taken place. This event happened more than a month ago so it is no longer breaking news. NEVENT clearly states that routine events such as crimes are usually not notable unless something further gives them enduring notability. This murder took place over a month ago and no other sources have been added beyond the initial reporting of the crime. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of features to this murder that make it notable (e.g. it being filmed). Most murders in Pakistan receive scant local coverage. This one has been receiving international coverage for a few news cycles - for some time after the event. With the coverage so far. There is enough coverage for notability - the question is whether it will be SUSTAINED.Icewhiz (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my reply to the article creator all the sources date from a few days as one would expect from a murder and then dry up. The last one was dated from nearly 3 weeks ago. The only possibly notable element was the fact this was filmed but beyond the voyeuristic element of this murder having been posted on the web and the novelty factor for a source to be able to post actual images of the crime there are no other reasons why this murder got coverage and as all the sources are single reports about the event I cannot see the proof that this was reported over more than 1 news cycle. As per NEVENT it doesn't matter if events were widely reported at the time it is the sustainability that matters. Half of the sources are not signed and come from either "web desk" or "news desk" or some such, and one is signed by a "trainee social media journalist". If there were follow up in depth reports from the same sources this may point to notability but there are none. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCRIME & WP:NOTNEWS. No apparent nor expected lasting signifance or societal impact. Borders on invasion of privacy. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Those who cite RAPID tend to ignore the entirety of our notability guidelines for events and their argument falls apart when you analyze it. Saying LASTING cannot be evaluated is another way of telling the closer there is ‘’no’’ lasting impact. Hence, it was too soon to create this article, as the other half of RAPID (“don’t ‘’rush’’ to create articles”) explicitly describes. The notability guidelines also warns us violent crimes are excellent for the media, but the encyclopedia has different criteria we follow with much higher standards for inclusion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet WP:NCRIME & WP:NOTNEWS as per K.e.coffman. All the news covers the actual event intensively for a few days, before apparently ceasing completely by 20th June. No reports of protests or laws changing or regulations being made, or politicians saying anything apart from the usual platitudes. Curdle (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2018 (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.