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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wasil Ahmad (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)

Subject is only notable for being killed. Article should be deleted per WP:1E and WP:NOT § NEWS Skudrafan1 (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I tried looking for any article this could be merged to but had trouble finding anything suitable. Taliban article's crimes had massive massacres and this would feel out of place there. Looking at the news stories reffed in the AfD page, the police in connection with the boy looked to be Afghan Uniform Police with their blue outfits and distinct hats. But as you can see the Uniform Police don't have their own article. They're briefly mentioned at Afghan National Police. The incident doesn't really fit there either. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He was not known only for one event as the sources clearly show: CNN say "An 11-year-old Afghan boy who had been praised for his bravery in leading security forces in battle against the Taliban". The Independent say "His role firing mortars and machine guns from the roof of a besieged government compound during the 43-day stand-off led to him being feted as a hero by the police militia with whom he fought." The Guardian say "Child soldier became a kind of grim celebrity in Afghanistan after he reportedly helped break a Taliban siege last summer." There are numerous other sources along similar lines, and that's just in English. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per WP:1E:"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." and validated by massive coverage. 12-year old war hero killed in targeted assassination. No wonder it got worldwide coverage. I trust User:Philafrenzy or some other editor will undertake to expand it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fully intended to and have a press cutting on my desk from 5 Feb. It didn't occur to me that anyone would AFD it in the meantime without reading the sources but after this much time here I should have known better. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sadly true. I do not know Nom, and he may have been merely careless. But too many editors bring articles to AFD without running WP:BEFORE, and there are others who AFD anything that shows Islamism is a negative light. Next time, try putting up a construciton tag when you need a little more time to build an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just careless I guess. Skudrafan1 (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skudrafan1 We are all careless sometimes. In this case, since no one else has voted delete, yo can withdraw the nomination and spare other editors the work of reviewing it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I often use that tag but in this case naively thought the range of sources spoke for themselves. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:1E and GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As E.M.Gregory notes, it meets WP:1E; as well as WP:GNG, as BabbaQ notes. Would be even better if someone expanded it, noting my own hypocrisy in not doing so. Edwardx (talk) 19:24, 22 February 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.