Talk:Manu Sharma/Archive 1

The point of an article called "Manu Sharma" is NOT to denounce Sharma of being a murderer or to express one's outrage at the Jessica Lal case - it is to inform about Sharma and his connections with the case with a Neutral Point Of View.

we're still not there, but I think the corrections I made did achieve some improvement ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.3.12 (talk • contribs)

Took a major stab at NPOV-ing it, in addition to adding lots of new material. While it is a biography, his case has become larger than the person in the life of India as a nation, and I added many of these aspects during this update. Mukerjee 16:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

MOVED: from Manu Sharma to Siddharth Vashist

The biography should go by his true name. The Delhi High Court officially refers to him as "Siddharth Vashisht alias Manu Sharma." For reference see court proceedings in this PDF: tinyurl.com/yrj8hx

--Orangehues 19:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Should the Manu Sharma article be deleted under WLPBIO1E?

There was a discussion as to whether the article should be deleted since Manu Sharma is notable for only the murder of Jessica Lall. In the AFD discussions it was pointed out that Jessica Lall's murder was notable only because it was done by Manu Sharma; had he been a nonentity the murder would not have made as much news. The debate was surprisingly closed without consensus. I am copying that discussion for providing context.

Manu Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A case of someone notable only for one event- namely, a murder. Said murder is already covered at Murder of Jessica Lall. The subject is the son of a politician, but being related to someone notable does not make you notable. J Milburn (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable person. Schuym1 (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable person. Schuym1 (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Murder of Jessica Lall - the murder was certainly notable but per WP:BIO1E he doesn't need a separate article. JohnCD (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect -- to Murder of Jessica Lall. - Longhair\^talk 22:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- As the criminal son of an ex-minister in the Central cabinet, Manu Sharma is notable on his own. Indeed, the only reason the murder of Jessica Lall is notable is because it was committed by Manu Sharma. It is true the Manu Sharma and Murder of Jessica Lall articles overlap on a number of aspects, but the Jessica Lall article presents aspects of the murder, and the social ramifications of it. The Manu Sharma article is more about his political and economic clout, covering, for example, the actions taken by his politician-father Venod Sharma to pay off witnesses, leading to his political downfall.
  In addition to the Jessica murder, Manu is also associated with Vikas Yadav, who has been sentenced in the Nitish Katara murder.
  The Manu Sharma case was a landmark in modern Indian history since it pioneered a shift where the growing middle class voice became effective against the entrenched corruption of the political class. Coming from the very highest echelons of India, Manu is personally more notable than, say, James Earl Ray, known primarily for the Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination. Similarly there are Wikipedia articles for John Hinckley, Herschel Grynszpan, etc. in addition to articles on their particular crimes. The importance of Manu Sharma for posterity is not only because he killed Jessica Lall, but because he is the criminal scion of a powerful family, and his conviction underscored an end of impunity in India. mukerjee (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You seemed to have missed the point here. I am not challenging the notability of the murder, but the subject would not be considered notable if he had not committed the murder, meaning that this is a standard case of someone notable for only a single event. Sure, his position may have made the murder more notable, but that does not mean that the murder makes him notable in his own right- note that people are never considered notable for their family connections. As you also mentioned (bribes and such) this is also a potentially serious article in general biographies of living people terms. We have unsourced negative statements all over the article- a quick few examples include "Venod Sharma was denied a congress ticket for the Parliamentary elections," and "many witnesses testified to the police about Manu Sharma being the murderer." This may be common knowledge to those familiar with Indian politics, but that doesn't mean you can just leave such damning statements lying around with poor or no sourcing. Other arguments you use in favour of this article being kept is that other crap exists, which is commonly regarded as invalid (we should judge articles on their own merits) and that this was a landmark case- again, I am not challenging the notability of the murder/case, only of the subject of this article. J Milburn (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per mukerjee - Shyamsunder23:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

I am moving this debate here as per the closing comments.mukerjee (talk)

Debate

To continue the debate, here are my [Mukerjee] responses to J. Milgram's response against my KEEP argument, that Manu Sharma was notable :

• You seemed to have missed the point here. I am not challenging the notability of the murder, but the subject would not be considered notable if he had not committed the murder, meaning that this is a standard case of someone notable for only a single event. Sure, his position may have made the murder more notable, but that does not mean that the murder makes him notable in his own right- note that people are never considered notable for their family connections.

I did not miss the point. In fact, the murder in itself - a murder of a upcoming model - was not notable at all. There are hundreds of other murders like this which never come to limelight. The reason why it became "notable" is because it was committed by a political heir, one who was slated to inherit his father's political dynasty. In India, most such political scions come to some degree of power on their own; this includes Om Prakash Chautala and Ajit Singh Naveen Patnaik and Rajiv Gandhi and Indira Gandhi and many lesser names. Manu was already notable in his electoral district, where he ran sugar mills at Indri in Haryana and Patran in Punjab, as well as a number of restaurants and a pub in Chandigarh.

Thus, what I am saying is that the fact that Manu committed such a crime makes the crime notable, and not vice versa.

• As you also mentioned (bribes and such) this is also a potentially serious article in general biographies of living people terms. We have unsourced negative statements all over the article- a quick few examples include "Venod Sharma was denied a congress ticket for the Parliamentary elections," and "many witnesses testified to the police about Manu Sharma being the murderer." This may be common knowledge to those familiar with Indian politics, but that doesn't mean you can just leave such damning statements lying around with poor or no sourcing.

If the article is being challenged on these grounds, it is quite a separate matter. As a fellow Wikipedia editor, you will agree that these can be fixed quite easily. In an article of 20K bytes, and 11 references, if there are two inadequately sourced statements, is it grounds for deleting the article?

Further, the section on WP:ONEEVENT states:

Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

As argued above, Manu Sharma is a high-profile individual by any standards. It was only because of his high profile that the murder of Jessica Lall has become a "large subject"; i think it can be argued that even now it is not perceived as a "larger" subject. Thus, this is not a "standard" WP:ONEEVENT case. mukerjee (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it is Sharma making the murder notable, not vice-versa, but that does not make Sharma notable. Sharma was not notable before the murder (one is not notable simply for being related to someone in politics, even if it seems likely that they will go into politics themselves) and people do not become notable simply for committing a murder. Two statements are not enough to delete, but there are more, and the biography is rather negative in tone- this is reason to delete on BLP grounds. He is 'high profile', yes, but not notable. I appreciate this isn't the same as other ONEEVENT cases, but I have seen similar. Jason Rae was a vaguely notable musician, but only really received media attention as he was the husband of Corinne Bailey Rae. His article was merged (no need to merge here- the other article already covers it well) on ONEEVENT grounds, and that was without the BLP concerns which, alone, are enough to warrant removing this article. If the subject is so notable, could you find some coverage of him that is not primarily about his father or the murder? J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you agree that this "isn't the same as other ONEEVENT cases". It is true that Manu didn't get much press coverage before this incident, but the fact that there was such a lot of coverage was because he was notable in some sense. In any event, your argument about redirecting and not merging are completely incorrect; this article is substantially focused on Manu's use of his powerful connections to undermine the judicial process. The details of his actions in this respect are completely missing in the JL article. That article is substantially different. In fact, another argument against merging these is that they would become unwieldy, which is also referred to in the ONEEVENT as a situation where articles should be kept separate.

As for the other arguments - it's being negative etc, that is not grounds for deletion, but re-editing. Raise the specifics on this page, please, and let's see if any editors come to it. But please do not unilaterally delete the article (by redirecting it, you are deleting all the independent content here) even while the debate is on.

May I also point out, that whether the article is to be deleted or not, it is rude to redirect it, thus removing this debate page, while the debate is on.

mukerjee (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have never deleted the article, redirecting it is completely different- the page history and talk page are still accessible while the debate is ongoing. Please note that the article should remain a redirect while the discussion is ongoing, because of BLP concerns. BLP concerns supersede any concern about leaving the article there for reference purposes. If the subject did not receive press coverage before the murder, then it must be the murder that made him notable. I am willing to change my mind on the matter if press coverage concerning the subject (but not the murder/his family) is located. Alternatively, I have no opposition to merging, providing you ensire that everything is sourced. Another point- a negatively toned biography certainly is worth deleting if there is nothing to revert to- no article is better than a negative one on a living person. Finally, this is not unilateral- myself and Stifle have both redirected this article, it is you who is unilaterally restoring it. J Milburn (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

My main point is that he simply does not fit the BLP pattern of low-profile individual in a larger event - and hence he is not at all a ONEEVENT case. Please address this issue.

As for the negative tone, agree that there may be lacunae, but I think most of the tone is actually from sources which are cited. If there are some instances on which the article can be improved, please mention these specifically and I am sure some of the editors will take them up.

Redirecting the article is deleting the contents, which you agree, is substantially different. Also, while the talk page remains available, it is harder to get at. And most of all, while the debate is not closed, doing so is RUDE!!

The perception in the case was never if the murderer of Jessica Lall could be found guilty, but if Manu Sharma would be found guilty. The murder of JL became important because of him, and his political connections / potential - hence he is, and remains, important in the encyclopedic sense. Even you agree that he does not fit the typical ONEEVENT situation.

Under these circumstances, don't you think you are being a bit hasty in prejudging it as BLP and moving it, especially when the AfD was inconclusive, and there are no grounds for thinking that he is "low-profile" in any sense, or that the event was "larger"? mukerjee (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, you keep saying that, and I keep responding- if the subject is notable, please find me some sources that discuss him outside of the context of the murder or his family. If you can do that, then we can reconsider the notability of the subject. It's irrelevant where any negative tone came from, it's there, which is unnacceptable per our neutral point of view and biographies of living people policies. We are having a discussion here- I cannot understand your view that me instating my version of the article is rude, but you instating yours is not. There is a BLP concern- as such, this should remain on the more BLP-friendly version (mine) until there is consensus to overturn that. This is non-negotiable. And no, I do not think I am being hasty- I wasn't the first to do this, Stifle was, and I didn't actually do it until around a week after I found the article. I waited for the views of others and thought about my own. Now, could you please provide some evidence of the notability you are raving about, rather than debating every nook of the process? J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have pointed out, and you agree, that Manu does not meet certain criteria (that he is not low-profile, that the event may not be "larger"). Now, you point to other aspects on which he may fit the record, that he was not notable before the event. First, it is possible that some articles on him and Blue Ice may be there from pre-1999, but I am not in a position to find these because of the flurry of data after that. Maybe others will report these. In any event, he definitely became much more notable after this. But the point is that you have agreed with me that he does not meet ALL the criteria for ONEEVENT ("he is not a standard case", in your words). So at the worst case, even if nothing exists pre-1999, he would meet only partial criteria for ONEEVENT. So why be so insistent on redirecting it (thereby deleting its separate content)? If you feel so sure, why not raise a new AfD, and let us try to come to a decent consensus? mukerjee (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So, wait, are you accepting that this subject was not notable before the murder? Just because it is not a standard case of ONEEVENT does not mean that the guidelines for ONEEVENT do not apply here. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mukerjee, I have to agree with J Milburn on this. With respect, you have not presented a coherent argument to explain either:

1. why the official policy WP:BLP1E does not apply on this occasion, or
2. how Manu Sharma was notable and met WP:BIO before this event

This debate page hasn't been removed; nor, for that matter, has the article — it's still available in history. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the BLP policy is being applied too harshly out here. He murdered a person, yes. That is one event, but the subsequent trial, trial by the media, defence by a prominent Supreme Court lawyer, him going undergroun cannot be termed as a "one event". Had be been involved in the shooting and convicted immediately, it would be a ONEEVENT episode.

If you want another non-related murder incident he was involved in see this or this or this, the media also analysed him as a brat kid. This sort of information would be out of scope in the main article on the murder.

I fail to see how a person could be classified as "non notable" if he has been covered by over 500 media articles. In fact he is notable enough when his father, a politician quit the ministry, the media titled it Manu Sharma's father quits Ministry, similarly with his uncle too Manu's uncle held, let off on bail. Now, why should a person must be already "notable" before a high-profile event to merit notability here? Are there preconditions that a person must already be notable to skip the ONEEVENT rule? How about applying it uniformly across all persons then? For example, Milind Murli Deora is an MP, his claim to fame is that he was voted in 2004. Isn't that a single event too? Before that he was just the son of a famous politician, and barely eligible to be elected. See this too: A film on the full story is a possibility =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Reinstating article; Pls call a new AfD if you insist

I am re-instating the article, since it clearly does not fit ONEEVENT. Neither Stifle nor Milgram have really addressed the issues raised by me earlier, and Nichalp adds some important new points as well. Manu was quite notable earlier, and it is this notability that made the event important. Unlike other people who become notable through the act alone, in his case, the act becomes notable because he did it.

This is clearly NOT the standard ONEEVENT template.

The earlier AfD did not support either delete or redirect or keep, it was 1:2:2 - so any one group taking a decision just because that group insists on a ONEEVENT interpretation is not right. Please address the points raised in the debate, or else issue a fresh AfD, and let it reach a conclusion. Do not impose your views by redirecting the article again. mukerjee (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note a new AfD has been called --Matilda ^talk 05:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)