Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anuj Bidve

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. and move to Murder of Anuj Bidve. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 23:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anuj Bidve

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

The man was murdered. So what? A lot of people are killed. This would be a BLP1E if he wasn't dead. If he never did anything notable while alive, why should he have an article because he copped it? This criminal-kills-man stuff doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Rcsprinter (converse) 18:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

REname to Murder of Anuj Bidve. The murder was widely reported when it happened and may have a long term effect on the reputation of Britain. I am not clear where the investigation of the murder has got to, but I suspect that there will be a trial in due course. Unfortunately the wheels of justice move slowly. Reporting restrictions mean that the press cannot say much at present. Keep for now. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the case has got to. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With a trial in progress, this is definitely not the point at which to decide what to do, one way or ther other. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Murder of Anuj Bidve. Very high profile case heavily covered in the British media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to name I should have given it in the first place! Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If only every murdered person covered in the press is included in Wiki. This is not the case and therefore, this person is no different. Further, the initiator of this article was perhaps in a rush to create an article with no regard for the cause of justice, which I find grossly irresponsible considering the fact that the case is still ongoing. Even if this article should be here, it should not be now (too soon). Wikipedia is not here to contravene the natural cause of justice and editors should be very careful when creating these kinds of artilces. The name of the article is also wrong which further demonstrates the hastiness in which the editor wrote this article.Tamsier (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this case is different from "every murdered person covered in the press". It has received far more coverage in the national press in both the UK and India than an "average" killing, largely because this kind of seemingly random shooting is much rarer in the UK than in some other countries, and that coverage has continued. I would add that, at least until the trial is over, the title should be "Killing of Anuj Bidve" rather than "Murder of Anuj Bidve", because there is the possibility that the court will decide that this was manslaughter rather than murder. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what we're waiting for, really. The accused denies murder but admits manslaughter (what's the difference?) so "Killing of Anuj Bidve" would be the better title. Even though I'm actually vouching for this to be deleted. But yeah. Rcsprinter (deliver) 19:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Tamsier, I really do not appreciate being called grossly irresponsible. There was no reason I could see not to create the article and some good reasons to create it (they aren't relevant to this AfD though). At that time I thought just the victim's name was appropriate, and Phil points out a good reason why murder would still be inappropriate. This was high-profile when I created it, certainly not an average killing, and we create this sort of article routinely long before a court case is settled or even begun. Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Hi Dougweller, perhaps I should have been a bit more delicate and if I offended you, I'm sorry. Having sat in jury service I know the damage this can do. But I take your point and once again I apologise.Tamsier (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Thank you, that was gracious. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and rename for consistency. Case - and victim - is highly notable. --Dweller (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2012 (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.