While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
As sad and upsetting as this incident may be and continues to be for the victims of the attack, it is poorly written and edited, and is now unfortunately, out of date. More importantly, it is unlikely that the topic meets the Wikipedia's notability and applicability criteria and there is a strong case for its immediate deletion.Barmispain (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I for one strongly disagree, it remains a highly noteworthy and shocking acid attack. It set an important precedent, being an unprovoked acid attack upon tourists, and it remains unpunished. Rather than issue blanket criticisms, how about addressing the faults by correcting them? I have no connection to the family, or the country, and no financial interest in the article. It would be helpful if other editors also declared any conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise. Cpsoper (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. While it is poorly written, this was a major news story. I'd support merging it into a related article (whatever that would be?). But the case for "immediate deletion" is extremely poor. Fluous (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. At least, why is the section 'Prior Incidents' included? There is no citable evidence that the first two bullet points are related events. Certainly, church burnings should need much more clarity to be called relevant. This leans away from objective reporting and towards an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.45.159 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
