Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devyani Khobragade incident

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The result was Closed and Withdrawn New information come to light and the nominator ahas withdrawn this. Additionally with the page move its a strong keep.Lihaas (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devyani Khobragade incident[edit]

Devyani Khobragade incident (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)

WP:NOTTEMPORARY (third aragraph} "cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." As of now it is 1 event and per NOTNEWS. Lihaas (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: title of AfD changed because article title was changed.
A much briefer subsection of indua-US relation perhaps? (i posed this on that talk page)Lihaas (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This incident might be worth mentioning on India–United States relations, depending on its long-term significance, but I don't think the article should be merged there. The intensity of the reaction in the Indian media and the retaliatory measures taken by the Indian government suggest that this incident meets WP:EVENT. Gobōnobō + c 17:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that this article is located at Devyani Khobragade incident. This incident is widely covered in diverse, international sources and has already had a tangible impact on India–US relations. Gobōnobō + c 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • MoveKeep as per User:Jinkinson..clearly a notable event...but probably not a notable person ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 17:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Move But a better title other than Devyani Khobragade visa incident is needed. Now that it is moved to a better title, we can keep it. The event is notable not because of the incident itself. But because of how it is handled by both nations. I personally think this event meets Wikipedia:NOTTEMPORARY. It requires context to understand and it cannot be provided in India–United States relations article (as suggested above by Lihaas) without giving undue weight to this incident. --Jayarathina (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Violates both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTTEMPORARY Veryhuman (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved page to Devyani Khobragade incident as recommended by majority. This incident has swollen up and is impacting India-US relations and will be referred to for long time to come hence cannot be treated as "one of" cases. Cheers AKS 18:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it's been moved. The incident is becoming quite big. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it's been moved. Agreed, this incident seems significant not just in terms of India-US relations (that will probably pass) but in the changing jurisprudence of diplomatic rights and immunities. Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(as moved) major diplomatic incident. The woman may not be notable, but the incident is notable because of who she is. See Raymond Allen Davis incident a US diplomat who was arrested in Pakistan for killing two people, and the US demanded his release under the Vienna Convention.Martin451 21:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin451 21:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under the current title, Devyani Khobragade incident. This is plainly a notable event given the significant consequences it's had in India, with reactions from senior Indian politicians. The person may or may not be notable but the incident and surrounding controversy is. Robofish (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep under current title incident meets WP:EVENT criteria, as event caused a major change in India government's stand in US related policy. Jethwarp (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under the new title "Devyani Khobragade incident". It has already become a quite notable event. Salih (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. It is a big event with wide coverage. --Pmsyyz (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (after page move) Notable incident. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 09:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Criticized? Mate we even got articles about Osama, and if we fall into criticism trap then we will have to delete the george bush or obama's article too, but no, this figure is heavily popular right now, and possibly going to play some role in future. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Its a major issue now. Gurumoorthy Poochandhai  10:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It should not be deleted. --SMSLet's talk 10:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This event has developed into a major diplomatic spat. -Sahir 10:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Article is notable per coverage. Happydit (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: People are calling it a anti-dalit mentality. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I've thought about this a while and have come to the conclusion that this article is a POV nightmare. Nearly all the sources are editorials aiming to whitewash incontrovertible evidence of fraud, human-trafficking, abuse, and slave labor. 143.215.120.5 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Number two story on Google News today and it is also making headlines (TV) in non-English news, so it certainly is relevant. In addition, the incident is not over as there are further developments (e.g., Indian removing the barricades from US embassy in Delhi).S-1-5-7 (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article has many dimensions and is a significant incident to warrant an article here. --Bhadani (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable incident. Encyclopedic information available. Needs further development in the area of her offence/background. -Rayabhari (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP: A very important discussion among two large democracies of the world about diplomatic immunity vs. local laws. It is very well documented and scholarly written referenced article and provides an important chronological imformation for readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.117.16 (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject meets WP:GNG. It chronicles a worldwide incident with many external sources. At hindustantimes.com the incident sits as 4 of the top 6 stories today. Subject is less than one week old, lack of notoriety cannot possibly be assessed per [[1]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.64.1 (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable incident (NOTTEMPORARY) affecting foreign relations between major countries and interpretation of diplomatic immunity. Already widely publicised and controversial incident. WP:GNG and WP:DIPLOMAT
  • COMMENT OK I'm not sure what to do here. Another editor has now created a separate article for the woman herself, and that means that this AfD's title is inaccurate. I'm changing the title, to match the article that the AfD notice is on, because I think it's likely that if the new article survives someone will AfD that too and it will need a separate section. Please let me know if there's another way to solve the problem —Soap— 16:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into India–United States relations. Much of the flap is just Indian politicians posturing to get people behind them with elections looming. The story is possibly at its temporary, passing height right now but should it grow to persuasive and enduring notability, then the paragraph about it at India–United States relations could be forked out to an article. WP:NOTTEMPORARY and WP:NOTNEWS rules apply. A civil servant breaking employment law is not encyclopaedic and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. — O'Dea (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction. I stand corrected, I was wrong. Someone went and created the page back. On 17th Dec, I wrote this page and after AfD and subsequent discussions, I moved it to the 'incident' page as I agree with the comments. Can someone please move the diplomat's page to the 'incident' page please? Cheers AKS
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/Devyani_Khobragade_incident&oldid=1179990218"