Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh Verma (journalist)

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. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Verma (journalist)[edit]

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

Previously PRODed and deleted as WP:ONEEVENT, the excessive unnecessary bloating in the article about the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots doesn't really bring him any notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Crtew (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is a totally different article than the one deleted. The draft had been in development before that was deleted and was intended to be an improvement.Crtew (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. The nominator makes a classic misinterpretation of WP:ONEEVENT. One Event is about a choice we make in handling a topic not disqualifying subjects. When you look at killed journalists around the world, 9 out of 10 killed are native journalists who are not known outside of their own area. The misinterpretation of this policy is dangerous because it would lead to foreign journalists or only journalists who are famous as being the only ones who could have articles, which would lead to a serious hole in our knowledge about this phenomenon. You need to look at the List of journalists killed in India and it's important to build content for that list that informs readers about this subject. The policy though simply doesn't say what most interpreters think. Most people believe wrongfully that one event disqualifies an article. (See below for more) Crtew (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEVENT is simply about a decision of whether to emphasize the event or the person or both. The policy says: ... "it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered." Crtew (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. There was significant coverage. The article about the riot is justified because it builds on our knowledge of civil discontent in India. The article about Verma is justified because it builds on our knowledge about the safety and security of journalists and the ability of a society to get the information it needs (See: List of journalists killed in India). These are two distinct threads that you will find in Wikipedia. I've seen other people in the past try to delete these lists and fail. The subject needs these articles to truly know about the phenomenon. Crtew (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination needs to be relisted under journalism and not just by area.Crtew (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WALL and more importantly WP:AGENDA. Listed in Journalism-related list too. And Delhi is not in MP. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Read them. The articles are clearly linked to the separate phenomena. Readers will follow their own interests. I can also assure you that there is no promotion or conflict here. Some edit articles about old 45 top ten hits and others edit about journalists and still others write about India. Thank you for you feedback, Crtew (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to edit topics of your choice. But what we see here is people-should-known-about-struggles-of-journalists, oh-my-god-so-many-journalists-killed, so-much-violence-in-india-on-journalism and such type of argument. Also, being employee of Network 18, their publications should not be used to count in " significant coverage" and works of Committee to Protect Journalists should be excluded likewise. The article is also bloated with irrelevant info, though sourced, just to make the guy look notable! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion, and it is that, just your opinion. Crtew (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, you are making factual errors that I can not let stand. The article does not build notability on either of the sources you mentioned. That's wrong. Check the sources for yourself. Crtew (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article mostly covers his death in riots and other info related to his death. I think there is no need of separate article. His inclusion in List of journalists killed in India is enough as it lacks enough info to be retained as standalone article.--Nizil (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename After further editing, the article should be renamed the "Killing of Rajesh Verma and Salim Israr" as the article has become less about Verma and more about the media workers killed during riots.Crtew (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per extensive sourcing, per information only provided in this individual article. per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots This is a WP:ONEEVENT and it should be covered in the larger article where the context is present. The amount of coverage is not so much that a standalone article is required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect if needed as all that's currently here to say is the event itself and, at that, there's nothing else but said event, no other notability claims. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots as per ONEEVENT. I disagree with a redirect. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. or redirect, but there's not really enough info to be worth a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of sources, national coverage, police assertions that he was targeted as a journalists (not a stray bullet source #1), and attention paid to the death after the incident.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2016 (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.