Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Masonda Ketada Olivier

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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Masonda Ketada Olivier[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Murder of Masonda Ketada Olivier (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)

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. There has been a lack of coverage since 2016. RaviC (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And all of your links are from May 2016 thus confirming that the event fails WP:LASTING. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article, Pope Sabinian, has not had a citation in about 15 years but is notable. I do not know this man, Olivier, but the rationale of nothing since 2016 is not a valid reason. Newseditingpedian (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is irrelevant, because "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" (which is the case here) "in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage" as per our policy. [1] As per WP:LASTING - which is the guideline you are citing, the policy made it absolutely clear that: "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation." [2] As I have demonstrated above, there are 54 recognised states in Africa. If 42 out of the 54 decided to boycott an event in India (a single country), I think that is significant and covers the "precedent or catalyst for something else" part of the guideline. That part of the guideline is also covered when it resulted in African diplomats asking their governments to prevent Africans students from visiting India, as well as the tit-for-tat attacks against Indian immigrants in Congo. Not only do they cover the "catalyst for something else" part of the guideline, but also the "effects on the views and behaviors of society." As evident in the sources cited which I chose not to address in detail, even the African immigrants in India reported that they do not feel safe in India because of racism. Mind you, the revenge attacks of Indians in Congo as per the source is just Congo - a single country in Africa. As there are loads of Indian immigrants in many parts of Africa, if I really wanted to, I am sure I would have no problem finding sources for other African nations where Indians have been targeted or mistreated in revenge for the racist attacks of African immigrants in India. As par your comment and vote below, I think it is you who doesn't like it hence why you are asking for it to be deleted without reading properly the policy that you cite.Tamsier (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment saying that the 42 out 54 African countries decided to boycott India? , did it happen No. it's ammounting to WP:Syn or may be WP:CRYSTALBALL, if the thing did not occur and was thought in the head by some to occur cannot be considered as "Catalyst" to anything , again if you find sources in all African countries and would like to summarize so that you can prove your theory right then it amounts again to WP:Syn sorry to say some how this is not wiki material.Shrikanthv (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again comparing a Byzantine! era pope Pope Sabinian to a commoner from 2016 is not really comparable Shrikanthv (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Every news event is notable for one time but it must meet WP:LASTING for justifying stand alone article. ML talk 18:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamsier, effects seem to be readily apparent and widespread. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of those "effects" are apparent since after May 2016. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is apparent is that you do not understand the policy that you cite. I refer you to my reply above.Tamsier (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLUD. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments above. Lack of significant coverage since days after the occurrence of the incident. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to my reply above.Tamsier (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary. Please see my reply above.Tamsier (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Such incidents happen all over the world but only few meets the requirement of lasting coverage. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope the closing admin will take into account that arguments based on policy and sources as per policy, are key here, and not just the number of votes either way. Some editors do not want this article to stand but have not debunked any of the points I have raised above.Tamsier (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:LASTING is about the long-term effects of the events, which Tamsier makes a decent argument it meets which has not been properly refuted. The "delete" votes who cite LASTING actually seem to be referring to WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, which is a different concept, and does not negate the LASTING indication of verifiability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@78.26: The closure could verify comments by Tamsier which only show ignorance of WP:NTEMP. WP:NTEMP says that "time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested". Nonetheless I have debunked his argument below. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Improper application of WP:LASTING to this AfD. Delete participants should read WP:LASTING before quoting it in their arguments. Keep per "Notability is not temporary", et al. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article itself lists all the sources[3][4][5] which fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRITERIA which says that "A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article." I am now analyzing the sources provided by Tamsier above:
Source Analysis
QZ from 26 May, 2016   fails WP:NOTNEWS
SACW from 29 May, 2016   fails WP:RS and WP:NOTNEWS
DNA India from 27 May, 2016   fails WP:NOTNEWS

WP:NOTNEWS says "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". WP:LASTING says "noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable.... It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect."

This event has clearly failed to attract any WP:SIGCOV right after the occurrence. Let alone the necessary coverage for "weeks or months" after the occurrence. Thus the subject fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING per nom. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is because your application of NOTNEWS is faulty. not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia ≠ no verifiable events can be included. If anything, the sources are per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCRIME. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    QEDK is correct. WP:NOTNEWS is a concept that applies to the article as a whole, not to any individual source. I did not feel that the "keep" arguments were of overwhelming strength, which is why I relisted, but the "delete" arguments have so far been faulty. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree with QEDK. Shashank5988's application of NOTNEWS is faulty. What is apparent to me with this AfD is that, the delete votes are citing policies they do not understand. Even the nom wrongly cited LASTING in their nomination as pointed out by myself and QEDK.Tamsier (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Subject fails WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS and subjects that don't meet this requirement deserves no article. Shashank5988 (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're just saying the same thing again and again, I'm trying to explain how it cannot apply here. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG reflected in the sources cited in the article, i note that this event is still being referred to, for example see The Quint article here of 21 March 2018 "Racism is Rampant, But Africans in India Hate the 'Victim' Tag", and from Identity and Marginality in India: Settlement Experience of Afghan Migrants (2019) (WorldCat listing here) Note no. 162 listing an Indian Express article of the event. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's analysis of your sources:-
Source Analysis
The Quint   fails WP:RS.
Book   fails WP:SIGCOV it is just a link to a news article from May 2016.
For meeting WP:LASTING you need WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. This event fails it. Shashank5988 (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great table, not sure why there is so much bold, being small may be just as effective? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:LASTING. Good references.BabbaQ (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources including the ones recently provided debunk the rationale that the subject fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. The votes above largely depend on misrepresentation of WP:NTEMP. Srijanx22 (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go on and explain how it is a misrepresentation, I did my due diligence and explained what is wrong with the blatant application of NOTNEWS and LASTING. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. Significant coverage on reliable sources was temporary and such coverage can be discovered for just any incident and this is why we abide by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTACTIVISM. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We seem to be forgetting one very important factor. LASTING is just one factor that is part of notability guidelines, even if you are saying, fails LASTING (however wrong that is, in this case), that is secondary to NTEMP. LASTING is not GNG, voting "Delete" because it fails LASTING might as well lead us to delete half of Wikipedia, why keep historically notable content that is no longer covered by reliable sources. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, doing my own (allbeit superficial) analysis of the participants of this afd, its interesting that all/most of the "deleters" appear to be from India while the "keepers" seem to be from all over the world, is it due to the sensitivities of the article's subject? (afd will probably now be inundated by editors from elsewhere:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I observed that and made a question about that in my comment but decided to keep it out of the discussion, lest it turn into a GamerGate 2. --qedk (t 桜 c) 04:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is definitely something going on this AfD, firstly it has a lot of undue attention, probably an off-wiki source and the skewness of arguments is just weird. I'm sure a lot of editors would concur but this AfD is already very suspect, as it is. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I concur. For several days now I have decided not to make any direct comment about this issue but to argue my case based on policy and sources. Although I alluded to this in my comment above, I deliberately chose not to go into detail for AGF reasons but it was quite evident to me from the get go. As someone who have participated in AfDs for years, I find it worrying that my initial fears are coming to light and other editors are now beginning to see it. As such, it would be foolish of me not to comment on this as it is quite evident on this AfD. Do I believe that all the delete votes are from the Indian subcontinent? Absolutely not. However, the majority are. Due to the sensitive nature of this article, it is quite evident that many are voting delete for nationalistic reasons (as you have mentioned in the ANI tread linked below) rather than per Wiki policy - and I find that rather worrying. The very fact that they do not understand the policy they cite and are merely stating the samething others have stated despite being debunked or clarified by the relisting admin I find rather worrying. In all the years I have participated in AfDs I have never experienced this. And believe me, I have participated in some sensitive and controversial AfDs over the years. I have made the same observations and totally agree with both of you. I hope the closing admin will take this into account when closing this rather sensitive AfD. I do not know for sure whether there is any off Wiki or off English Wiki canvassing going on and therefore do not want to accuse anyone of such a thing without any evidence, and I certainly do not have the time to go around looking for evidence. However, there is something very strange going on here which goes against the spirit of our AfD policies.Tamsier (talk)
  • Delete - Clear failure of WP:NOTNEWS and failure to mark lasting impact. No need to dedicate a standalone article to a subject which had temporary coverage only because it occured. Above POV pushing by keep votes strikes me as violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY.  103.67.158.15 (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 103.67.158.15 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to this XFD page. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claiming anyone on the "Keep" side is POV-pushing and citing WP:NOTADVOCACY against editors (read WP:AGF) only conveys how little you understand Wikipedia policies. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the original creator of this article. This event was significant enough at the time to strain Africa-India relation, and led to a strong debate on Racism in India. It is notable enough to be mentioned in discussions in later years. That is more than news. By the arguments put forward as 'Not news', even Tiannamen square tankman would not be news. This is more than news, it is an event that tipped over strained relations between a number of different states, and led to government level talks, policies and interventions. It triggered a social discussion, and influenced lives of people in both continents. The notabillity is not simply for being in the news, it is for having precipitated a number of additional impactful events. I am frankly suprised that this article was nominated for deletion, the fact that many supporters of delete appear to be from idnai has been mentioned. I also note the user Shashank has deleted cited parts of the article which depereceated its content perspective and value. Perspective is important.This is nothing to do with advocacy or whatever. I deeply suspect there is a substantial PoV pushing from some editors in the delete column.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 08:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: rueben_lys (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Your reasoning behind creating and preserving this article appears to be a textbook example of WP:NOTADVOCACY. I would suggest you refrain from casting WP:ASPERSIONS. --RaviC (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the subject of the article is plausibly notable, sourcing is limited to a burst of coverage in 2016 (+I found a mention in a list in 2017) - thus we are lacking WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the event/crime. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*"+I found a mention in a list in 2017", don't forget the couple (2018, 2019) i mention above (1 is a ref to a 2016 news report but the book's author deemed it relevant enough). Coolabahapple (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain which part of WP:NOTADVOCACY is relevant in any of the article creation above. If you have not read the policy, do not cite it.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions by new users contributing to discussion. Newsediting pedian account appears to be less than a week old with scant other contributions.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME, there's a slew of international coverage on the unfortunate murder, including from England and the Congo (in French) [6] (and what appears to be an op-ed from June here, which debunks the "only a flurry of coverage immediately following the event" !votes above [7]). WP:LASTING/WP:SUSTAINED does not really apply here. The crime had coverage after the fact such as [8] - this was not just a news story - and as the crime continues to be mentioned after the fact, such as [9]. I've added a source to the article. SportingFlyer T·C 02:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like stated below every reported crime can be interpreted to have passed WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME if we go by your logic. What matters is if the incident received significant coverage in independent reliable sources weeks or months after it occurred. Your sources fail that requirement.
Source Analysis
[10] Initial report from 30 May, 2016   fails WP:NOTNEWS
[11] Opinion piece about initial report from 6 June, 2016   Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RS
[12] An opinion piece from April 2017   fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS: Article only provides a sentence to the incident and includes other such non-notable incidents.
Since you agree that the incident fails "WP:LASTING/WP:SUSTAINED" your justifications make no sense. Shashank5988 (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From your table, it's clear to me you don't have an understanding of how sourcing works. First, sources themselves cannot fail WP:NOTNEWS. Second, I have absolutely no idea in what world allafrica.com isn't a reliable source. As someone who has done work improving Africa-related articles, it is a very valuable source for coverage. The NPR article isn't being presented to show notability on WP:GNG grounds, but to show this is an event which had a lasting impact which is continued to be discussed. There are other sources from beyond May 2016 showing this wasn't routine news coverage, such as [13] and [14]. Finally, I strongly disagree with you putting words in my mouth. This article does NOT fail WP:LASTING or WP:SUSTAINED, and I believe I clearly said that. SportingFlyer T·C 12:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Op-eds and mere "mention" are unreliable for deciding notability. 197.232.33.38 (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article fails and WP:NOTNEWS because of a lack of significant coverage after initial reports. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Can someone please hat the silly allegation of canvassing at ANI made by Shashank5988 against Rueben lys (above)? Although Rueben forgot/failed to follow certain in-house etiquette when reporting those editors at ANI as noted by QEDK, there is nothing in Rueben's report that constituted canvassing, but the editing conduct of certain individuals which is quite apparent on this AfD as well as the contribution history of the article. If you have an issue against another editor, please take it to ANI or other platforms. Do not disrupt this AfD with false allegations against another editor. Further, I would advise those engaging in edit war and removing sourced content on this article to cease doing so. Can someone please hat the above silly allegation? Thank you.Tamsier (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: This is clearly relevant to other articles, not least Ethnic relations in India, Democratic Republic of the Congo–India relations and possibly Human rights in India. I see no reason why it shouldn't be merged into them, especially since the significance of the event is "external" to these aspects anyway. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable crime which was mainly reported by local media often repeating each other. Far from passing WP:NOTNEWS. 197.232.33.38 (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks significant coverage during past 3 years and hence fails WP:SUSTAINED. --Mhhossein talk 19:33, 16 May 2019 (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/Murder_of_Masonda_Ketada_Olivier&oldid=897539567"