Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepan Budlakoti

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deepan Budlakoti

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

WP:BLP of a person who, as sad and unfortunate as the story is, has not been adequately referenced to enough reliable sourcing to earn a BLP on Wikipedia. There are just two sources here (#4 and #9) which pass muster as reliable sourcing — the other sources are the website of an activist campaign with an inherent conflict of interest, a discussion forum which doesn't count as a reliable source, a newspaper's editorial (which is not the same thing as neutral coverage in the news section), or primary source confirmation of the texts of relevant documents (e.g. citizenship law, human rights declarations) which fails to actually constitute coverage of him. Wikipedia does not exist as a public relations database to help activist groups publicize their campaigns, worthy though they may be — the level of reliable source coverage which is specifically about him is simply not sufficient to make him an appropriate encyclopedia topic (and even if better sourcing can actually be shown to exist, the article would still need to be significantly rewritten from where it is now.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing about Budlakoti or the sources passes notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Budlakoti v Canada 2014 FC 855 2015 FCA 139 is notable because, as a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, it satisfies criteria 2 of WP:CASES, because decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal are binding on the Federal Court: [1] [2]. Indeed, a case can only get to the Federal Court of Appeal if the judge of the lower court certifies that the case raises a question of general importance: [3]. A search for "Budlakoti v Canada" brings up a report of the case in the Law Times and coverage from Queen's University.
Comments. (1) Whether a newspaper's editorial is neutral does not affect its reliability. Reliable sources are not required to be neutral. Wikipedia is supposed to report relevant opinions as well as facts. (2) The CCLA reference in the article is a deadlink, but he is mentioned on their website here. (3) I am not sure what the nominator means by "an inherent conflict of interests". WP:COI is a behavioural guideline for editors. It has nothing to do with the independence or reliability of sources and has, therefore, no effect on notability. Independence is not neutrality. Simply having an opinion and expressing it publicly doesn't affect the independence of a source. I don't think that expressing it in a letter to the relevant minister affects it either, as I don't see much difference between expressing it there and expressing it in a newspaper for all to read. Representing him in a complaint to the UN Human Rights Commission might have an effect if it involves taking instructions from him, or the like, but it isn't "inherent". I can't see anything like that on the Amnesty International site.
Keep. I think the coverage in the news sources in the article, and in the fifty or so sources in GNews and Highbeam, and the other sources, satisfy GNG. Note that this is sustained coverage over a number of years. We might want to rework the article so that it is specifically about the dispute over his nationality. James500 (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for the subject: It meets WP:BASIC; there is a lot of coverage. WP:BLP1E may apply; however the case (event) is notable: there is a lot of coverage of the case, it is ongoing, it has reached a national audience, and it has raised questions and significant opposition on the Canadian immigration system. Esquivalience ^t 02:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Strictly speaking, a case (as opposed to a trial) isn't an event. It can be defined as the written memorandum of a dispute. The thing known as the judgement or opinion (these things: [4] [5]) is actually a document or text. Likewise the precedent created by the decision is a rule of law, rather than an event. That is what is primarily meant when one speaks of "Budlakoti v Canada" or any other case. James500 (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the case has been going on since 2009, without an end in sight, it has attained national (several metro newspaper stories) and worldwide (Amnesty International) attention, and was subject of several rulings by high courts in Canada, possibly becoming a cause célèbre. Several reliable sources independent of the subject are there. Passes WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2015 (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.