Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Bal Thackeray

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. The consensus and the only reasonable solute is delete. This is covered sufficiently in the main article. The comparison with Gandhi shows the inappropriateness of this article. DGG ( talk ) 11:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Bal Thackeray[edit]

Death of Bal Thackeray (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)

No reason this should have been split from the main article. He died, nothing significant to make the death notable, coverage within reasonable expectations for politicians such as him. —SpacemanSpiff 08:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His death is quite notable. over 2,000,000 people mourn over his death. ( see Bal Thackeray#Reactions) There was city bandh in mourn of death of Balasaheb Thackeray. and see the article Superstar rajnikanth wrote Sri Bala Saab Thackrey was a great leader & a father figure to many, including me....this is a great loss to all.... (see Bal Thackeray) so i vote for keep Forgot to put name (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability for following reasons and more (1) Record numbers of mourners: two million (2) complete peaceful closure of city for two -three days (3) Arrests related to death (4)unprecedented obituary in both Houses of Parliament (5) Unique public funeral Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A record 7 km long cortège. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or rename, see comments below. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge The Economist has this as their obituary of the week — I was just reading it. Anyway, whether the death/funeral/reaction is split out or not is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion as the topic is clearly notable. Warden (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bal Thackeray. Delete, changed per my response to SpacemanSpiff immediately below. No need to fork this and no need to pander to the usual Hindutva pov pushing. The guy was notable and his death is a part of his life, if you get what I mean. - Sitush (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. I looked at the history and saw a fair few entries. I also noticed a familiar style of excessive quoting etc. However, having now reviewed Bal Thackeray, yes, you are correct. I have changed to delete above. And, boy, does the original article need some TLC. - Sitush (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, a redirect would be the quick solution, I guess. That probably could have been boldly done but given the controversial nature of Thackeray and also the identity of one of the main contributors, you've done the right thing in being circumspect. - Sitush (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's your POV and you are entitled to hold it. It isn't mine - I have no time for what I perceive to be his racism etc - but in any event, Wikipedia is supposed to present things neutrally and with due weight. While there may be the odd exception, and an assassination of a head of state such as JFK would fit that bill, as a general rule a person's death is treated in the article concerning their life. Thackeray died of natural causes - nothing "special". He died, we say that in the article about him and that's the end of the matter. That a lot of people turned up to his funeral is, well, very nice for his family I am sure, but it is not something that warrants a separate article. The founding of the party and his "great contributions" (sic) etc are correctly covered as part of his life (and elsewhere, at Shiv Sena, for example). It doesn't need another outlet, least of all one that is effectively likely to be a hagiography. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merits a section "Death" in the Bal Thackeray article (which, I note, is already there and perhaps overly lengthy). But not a separate article. --regentspark (comment) 21:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Perhaps the article can be renamed "Funeral of Bal Thackeray" as the event that resulted in one of the largest peaceful gatherings in human history, of if that isn't notable I wonder what is? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The is not about the title, it is about what constitutes normal practice, due weight and neutrality etc. Changing the title will not make the articles any more valid per se. As for peaceful, when a mob of Shiv Sena bully boys supporters descend on various places in relation to Facebook comment, there are accusations that people were stunned with fear and the commissioner of police asked people to stay indoors, well,your definition differs from mine! - Sitush (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That incident is apart from the 7 km cortege that had over two million mourners, does anyone allude that the mourners were coerced, let us have evidence. The arrests also makes the incident more notable which I've mentioned. Being unhappy with the politics of Shiv Sena or Thackeray must not make any incident non-notable, one of the largest conglomeration of humans ever. Perhaps Thackeray's death is routine, well everyone has to die one day, however the funeral is quite notable, not many humans ever had one like that. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article need to be present not just because of death of a popular leader(its debatable) but also because of the events just before and after his death. People gathering infront of his house while he was critical, the visists by Notable people and above all the number of people gathered during the funeral. I am sure all these events warrant a different article. Although I would like it to be renamed to something like "Funeral..." as death of Bal Thackeray alone is not a notable event.--sarvajna (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per nom. --GDibyendu (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Preposterous nomination. Aniket junnare (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the main article. The death does not appear to be in any way notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a natural death. Any leader of his stature gets the coverage for their death. A separate article is not needed. Salih (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in part and delete Contents are redundant and more news than encyclopedia. Material about funeral in main article is more cogent and as well sourced.
  • Indeed. I've been working on that, removing the detritus/rephrasing etc. Still needs some work. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) talk 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what isn't already duplicated at Bal Thackeray#Illness and death and Delete the rest. Absolutely there is coverage and absolutely the subject's death and funeral should be covered here. But most is already covered at Bal Thackeray and is well-sourced, fairly well written and doesn't take up a disproportionate amount of space. For those lodging WP:ILIKEIT votes (or more accurately, WP:IFOLLOWEDHIM), please have a read of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Stalwart111 01:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the biggest, longest funerals in human history: according to you doesn't require its own article, there are other side plots too; the arrests, the controversy over the memorial site... Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the ancient Egyptians had some pretty good ones that lasted for months and ended with the ritual sacrifice of slaves and soldiers for burial in purpose-built tombs that remained the largest buildings on Earth for the better part of 2000 years. And? None of that really explains why this can't be covered in his biography? There's no length limit and it was previously well-covered until the details were removed in favour of the subject article, presumably to make a point or something. Any reason this needs its own article? Other than that someone wants some sort of memorial? Stalwart111 13:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) Well wouldn't mentioning all the notable incidents related to a person's death make the article unbalanced, (as an example) 50 lines for the 86 years he lived, and 100 for his funeral. (2) If anyone has enough information about those Egyptian funerals and there aren't articles about them, such articles ought to be created. Yogesh Khandke (talk)
  • (1) The version I saw of Bal Thackeray covered the funeral fairly comprehensively (at least compared to the original version of this article) and I couldn't see justification for a WP:CONTENTFORK for the funeral alone. I still can't.
(2) My point about the Egyptian funerals was that it is a matter of historical record that they were significant but we don't have content forks for those. I don't think anyone is suggesting the funeral (in this case) was not significant - I see it as mostly a stylistic preference for a content fork or not. I don't think it needs one, you think it does. The need for one had not been properly substantiated and so it was nominated for deletion. I still can't see why a content fork is necessary, except in the case that someone would want to memorialise the subject with an article that covers the most minute of trivial details about the funeral itself, with reference to WP:NOTMEMORIAL. You are obviously free to disagree (as you seem to do) - that's the fun of consensus building. Stalwart111 22:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) My basis in wp:EVENT, one of the biggest, longest ever; I am happy with any consensus that emerges, my comments are made because in my opinion the opposition is addressing a straw man argument, it is as I perceive based on dislike of tne man's politics. (2) One example is of stand alone notability is the funeral site that continues to grab centre stage because of the "memorial" controversy at the site of the cremation, my question is do you wish all that is included in the main article? That itself is notable enough for an article such as Bal Thackeray memorial controversy Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I would be inclined to disagree, but my opinion above has nothing to do with the subject's politics (without looking at the article again, I couldn't even tell you what they were). As I said, my opinion was more about personal style preferences and the fact that I couldn't see the need for a separate article and still don't. Equal to my original comment, arguments based on a dislike for the subject don't belong here either. Stalwart111 05:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a natural death, yes, we don't have separate articles like this for every important person that dies. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And merge some of that info into the person's bio. I cannot believe that an article exists to document what is basically someone dying of old age. §FreeRangeFrog 04:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge and delete this. There are no size constraints and the article isnt going to grow as hes not generating anything new to add. Seems to be started just cause others have pages as such. (which in other cases is due to size)Lihaas (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment people saying keep the article (all of thm) are doing so on the premise of it being greatly notable. That is NOT the question here, it is notable (and even some deletion/merge comments agree), it just doesnt need to be split into another article. All/most content can and will be kepy, on his page.Lihaas (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Nearly all" of the material better had not be kept if it is merged. You've cut a perfectly reasonable summary from the thing today and are now proposing to overload it with a swathe of ridiculous sentiment and POV-driven over-reaction? I know that this is one for Talk:Bal Thackeray but, really ...? - Sitush (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a comment on the events or their coverage by Wikipedia? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OED: obtuse. - Sitush (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. Now may we have the answer? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, enough material for a separate article. With a separate article on the death and funeral, it can be summarized in the main article. --Soman (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2012 (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/Death_of_Bal_Thackeray&oldid=1137774895"