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.
Three different events, none showing any evidence of having any lasting influence. Does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:EVENT. Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS.
Randykitty (
talk) 09:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Any policy-based reason for this !vote? Thanks. --
Randykitty (
talk) 11:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep A terrorist organization asassinated a Supreme Court justice. Intrinsic notability.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 22:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment@
E.M.Gregory:: Sorry, but that is incorrect, "the chief of the secretariat" is not a justice. --
Randykitty (
talk) 02:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)reply
I see. He was, "the head of the Supreme Court’s secretariat", "a senior officer of the nation's highest court,"
Washington Post[1]. I have no idea what that means in terms of what his job was. The coverage of this attack was certainly international. Deletion seems to remove useful information about this period of Afghan/Taliban history. Is there a logical target article to which you suggest a redirect?
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 09:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Well, the coverage was international (as could be expected), but not lasting (unfortunately, attacks like this are all too common in Afghanistan to generate lasting coverage), so this fails BLP1E, I think. Perhaps there's somewhere a list of Taliban attacks/assassinations? --
Randykitty (
talk) 12:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - notable, per sources, per assasinated supreme court justice. Per WP:GNG.
BabbaQ (
talk) 23:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)reply
CommentBabbaQ, as stated above, tRaufi was not a justice, but "the chief of the secretariat". No lasting coverage either. --
Randykitty (
talk) 04:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and Move to Draft at best as I myself would've also considered keeping, noticing the Supreme Court mentions, but this is also still questionable for its own notable article and there's also no actual article for him either. Therefore, there's simply nothing else better convincing especially since it was a then-event.
SwisterTwistertalk 19:07, 22 May 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.