Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Murshidabad beheading

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 keep. J04n(talk page) 23:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Murshidabad beheading[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

The topic "2008 Murshidabad beheading" is about a news of a village in the district of Murshidabad of West Bengal similar to that happens in many undeveloped villages across India due to lack of poverty, educations and social awareness. The title of the topic is not mentioned in none of the sources provided. However giving such titles signifies the article creator's own view on the subject. Sentences like The incident created a public outrage even though sections of the mainstream media blacked out the incident as a part of their responsible journalism. may create WP:COI . -- Mrwikidor ←track 12:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This incident was not an ordinary incident. A kangaroo court orders execution of a man for marrying a woman of different religion and that execution is carried out. Can you show any other instance of this shocking incident? This is an unparalleled event in the history of West Bengal. It was reported by at least two Indian media houses. BengaliHindu (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many instances of similar incidents carried out by kangaroo courts like this one[1] and particularly in West Bengal where issues like child labor and child marriage co-exists.[2] Also, UNICEF reported that "caste population is almost one quarter of the state´s population and higher than the national average. These children and families face discrimination and exclusion from health, education and many social programmes". My friend, "the history of West Bengal" has a lot more shocking incidents for example [3] or [4] or this [5] etc. Still if the news described in "2008 Murshidabad beheading" is worthy of notable as per your views but i'm still unsure why you refer the news as 2008 Murshidabad beheading when none of the reference provided cited that title?? - Mrwikidor ←track 14:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brother, none of the reports pointed out by you mention a person being killed on the orders of a kangaroo court. There have instances of honour killing or killing on suspicion of witchcraft, but is there any other incident where a shalishi court presided over by educated people who have ordered the killing of an individual just for marrying someone of different religion? In case of title it is precise, natural and concise just as WP:TITLE recommends. BengaliHindu (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -This is kind of Honor Killing still exists in various parts of India particularly in villages and are reported frequently in local news channels. Another similar news has been reported by The Times of India here[6] or this [7] reported by AAJ TV. Such incidents are among the major problems in India. A good resource i found is here[8] and also here[9] and it is obvious that such incidents can only take place by the decisions of kangaroo courts or khap panchayats as told here[10] by the Lawyers Collective like another reported here[11] by The Times of India. - Mrwikidor ←track 14:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This incident is not honor killing. According to Wikipedia 'an honor killing, or honour killing is the homicide of a member of a family or social group by other members, due to the belief of the perpetrators that the victim has brought dishonor upon the family or community'. In this case, someone who didn't belong to the family or social group of the perpetrators were killed. If the woman was killed then it would have been an honor killing. Kindly refrain from making irrelevant comments. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The problems identified in the nomination could be solved by cleanup rather than deletion. If this is indeed a common problem, then perhaps a generic article about it would be possible, and then this could be merged into it. Until that happens, this incident seems notable, and it would be wrong for Wikipedia to omit all mention of this problem. It is not necessary for the sources to use exactly this title -- it's enough that they describe the beheading and they give the 2008 date. --Stfg (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title seems intentional researching on the article creator's contributions where Hindu fanatics like Upananda Brahmachari[12] contributed. Many of the contributions by the article creator are biased anti-islamic propaganda, as an example this[13]. Several claims have been made in hundreds of articles[14] without any citations. Many articles lack neutrality. A generic article may work but i'd love to know how you found this incident worthy of Wikipedic? Mrwikidor ←track 16:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was ad hominem. We don't delete articles just because of who contributed them. Please, comment on the content, not on the contributor. --Stfg (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was not an ad hominem and nobody asked to delete this article for its contributor. In case if you haven't read my comments so far then please read again. My issue is with the tone of the article that is presenting an incident similar to many happen in West Bengal in anti-Islamic manner. Mrwikidor ←track 04:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To say "Many of the contributions by the article creator are biased anti-islamic propaganda" is ad hominem. --Stfg (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, please look below to the post by User:Handyunits for an upgraded version of ad hominem. Mrwikidor ←track 20:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the title does not meet WP:POVNAMING and Wikipedia is not a newspaper Dejakh~talk!•did! 19:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:POVNAMING is grounds for renaming, not for deletion, but in any case, what is the POV here? The sources do record that this beheading took place there in 2008. WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events", and I think this five-year-ago event has durable notability. --Stfg (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This 5 year old event fails WP:EVENT Mrwikidor ←track 04:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Mrwikidor ←track 04:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENT and less notable than Rizwanur Rahman. - Voidz (t·c) 06:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Less notable compared to certain other event cannot be a criteria for deletion. The event had a shaken the ruling government at that time. The Chief Secretary had made public statement that the culprits would be punished. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article must not be deleted as it has highlighted a case of religious extremism.Fazla Rabbi (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazla Rabbi (talk • contribs) 13:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Bad faith nomination by political activist. This nomination is part of a WP:CANVASS campaign carried out by nominator to get articles on incidents carried out by South Asian Islamic militants deleted. See this diff, as well as this racist edit summary made by editor that casts false aspersions on established wikipedia editors, violating WP:AGF and WP:NPOV.Handyunits (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now, this is called a pure ad hominem. Mrwikidor ←track 20:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Inigo Montoya famously said, "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means". I urge you to read a dictionary, and not copy-paste from StG's post above.05:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handyunits (talk • contribs)

Keep: The main concern is that WP:COI. There are no as such COI in this article. The incident and event is notable. any one can write the article as mention by similar to that happens in many undeveloped villages across India due to lack of poverty, educations and social awareness.~~Mrwikidor.~~

There are no limit.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 06:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above keep !vote was made by user:Jayantanth in this edit. The link to User:Mrwikidor is not Mrwikidor's signature. The strikethough and reformatting were done by me in an attempt to make matters clear. --Stfg (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nomination rationale consists of several things: objecting to the name (not a deletion reason), accusations of COI (not a deletion reason), WP:IDONTLIKEIT (not a deletion reason) and borderline personal attacks. It also consists of a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that this happens regularly (which I doubt), and is thus not remotely based on policy. This event did receive coverage a couple of years after the event: [15], although how reliable that is, I don't know (it doesn't seem too bad). Obviously the Kolkatta Telegraph is fairly local coverage, but if the Asian Age is reliable, then that evidently is not. There's also this [16]. Add Hindi sources, which will surely exist, and I'm confident this passes WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pass a Method talk 08:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was not asked to comment by anybody; I found this on a project deletion page. I see no reason for actual deletion and even the article's name doesn't seem to be a problem. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2013 (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.