Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Basirhat communal violence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. With the exception of the article's creator, unanimous agreement to delete, mostly based on WP:NOTNEWS. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Basirhat communal violence[edit]

2017 Basirhat communal violence (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)

Apart from WP:NOTNEWS, the article is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH of sources which includes opinion pieces as well. Jionakeli (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it stands. I'm rather uncomfortable with us having an article entirely about a negative aspect of a living person especially when that person is a minor, the "crime" in this case is unproven, and the incident seems recent enough that the details are probably still unknown. Vanamonde (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Updated according to move. Jionakeli (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia is also not written in news style." The subject of the article in question is certainly not WP:NOTNEWS
I think you missed "Who's who" point. Also 'Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Jionakeli (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Who's who" is not related as subject of article isn't Souvik Sarkar, the post is part of a series of violent attacks on FOE in various countries over the years, considering that it has been reported internationally, and has resulted in one at least one death. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any connection of it with "series of violent attacks on FOE in various countries over the years". If "Who's who" not related then why the title itself mentions Souvik Sarkar? You added this source of "police arresting a person for sharing a fake image from a movie as the image of the communal violence" for this edit. It is WP:CHERRY. Jionakeli (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't see" is OR, A TOI and it as a FOE issue, compares it with other such FOE issue,[1][2]
How did this title violate BLP guidelines? Be kind enough to explain. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I used to "Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy" as model. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know: bad choice. Lars Vilks is a notable person, and an adult to boot. He's not a schoolboy who is accused of having posted something on Facebook. Should have listened to Vanamonde. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply- Keep your political agenda to yourself. Don't bring your POV dispute here by showing links to some other article. You can create article about Bhadrak riots to please yourself. Did you create article about lynching of Mohammed Ayub Pandith yet? as you created other articles about lynching. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not lecture me on what to create and what not to. I didn't ask you to keep your political agendas to yourself when you selectively made comments on AFD. The links aren't unrelated because violence over facebook posts are not new in India and it happened irrespective of caste or creed.Jionakeli (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Marvellous Spider-Man, two admins considered the title to be a BLP violation. If the creator had listened, these page moves wouldn't have been happening during the AfD, and it's possible that it might be under a different name. Personally I don't care for the title one way or another, whether this one or "Baduria communal riots"; you and the creator could have been involved in that, but the creator chose to replace one BLP violation with another. The current title comes from one of the sources, so it can't be all that wrong, unless of course you know better than the sources. As for your "note" to the closing admin--I've already placed that note, but thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies I've gone through wp:BLP one more time after your remarks. Especially privacy of names, considering the emphasis of the subject being a juvenile by you, reliable sources haven't "intentionally concealed his name" and his name has been "widely disseminated" in reliable sources, also WP:CRIME and the issue of victimisation doesn't apply, because incident related to person who put up the post, has been discussed as a victim of continuation of violation of FOE,[4][5] we have an article about a juvenile in a similar situation Rimsha Masih blasphemy case, please say why this article be treated differently. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD is not the place to discuss this, but I'll tell you that the opening paragraph of the larger section (WP:AVOIDVICTIM) and the BLP1E section give us admins more than enough latitude to consider the original name a violation. You should have looked at the policy when you were first asked about it. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've read then and am re-reading now. (1)WP:AVOIDVICTIM doesn't apply imo, it says "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization", as I've mentioned it above, neither the content nor the tone of article indicates victimisation of the FB poster, just as Rimsha Masih blasphemy case doesn't seek or perpetuate victimisation of Rimsha Masiah, (2) wp:BLP1E, "Subjects notable only for one event", would apply if Sarkar had been the subject of the article, which he isn't, his Facebook post was. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that latter argument, which is pure nonsense, were accepted, you shouldn't have a problem with taking the name out the first time around. Plus, you're wrong: it's the controversy, not the Facebook post that's the subject of the article. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies Please maintain decorum and keep this debate civil, please do not attack personally, we are all here to contribute constructively to this project, to the best of our abilities. As creator and major contributor,[6] imho it is controversial incidents related to teenage boy, Souvik Sarkar's FB post that are the subject of this article, incidents such as the burning of his house, his arrest, demands that he be handed over for stoning to death, posters demanding that he be hanged, arson, damage and looting of public and private property, violence against individuals and the killing of one person Kartik Das, all in protest of his post, also that Sarkar is a victim of an attack on his FOE, victim of society and the government, and this has been considered bad for democratic society... (sources for above statements provided in article, as inline citations) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologize for telling you that you're wrong. Stop playing the victim here. Drmies (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also see that there is discussion related to merging on this article's talk page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The demands for stoning to death, to be hanged are all "alleged" reported by few primary news sources. The event is not limited to a single facebook post of a morphed image[7]. The Citizen (India) gives a good insight[8]. An investigation has been ordered to find "who had created the trouble and who spread the rumours"[9] so unless you have sources that support your views, these all are WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The article 2017 Baduria riots already covers the event. I don't see a need for a separate article on the same event. Jionakeli (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2017_Basirhat_communal_violence&oldid=1137520219"