Talk:2021 Singhu border lynching

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(untitled)[edit]

Thanks to @Hughesdarren: for reviewing this page Dhy.rjw (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft notability[edit]

Please follow the process for draft submission, a reviewer will approve the article if it matches the criteria for article. As far as I can see it does not. see Draft:2021 lynching and killing of dalit by farm protestors same reason applies. To quote Mcmatter : This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:ONEEVENT for more information." --Venkat TL (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For my mind this article satisfies all of the criteria of WP:GNG, which is why I reviewed it through to the main space. While I'm not expert of the popular press in India, it seems to me that all of the references provided are reliable secondary sources (The Indian Express, Tribune India, India Today, Hindustan Times and The Economic Times provide five of the seven sources). The fact that five major news outlets gave reasonable coverage suggest notability. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything published in these newspapers can have an article. I think this clearly fails the news event criteria quoted by Mcmatter above. So this will be deleted. Also this draft is a clear duplicate of Draft:2021 lynching and killing of dalit by farm protestors covering the same event. How should duplicate drafts be handled? should they be merged or left separate? Venkat TL (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Enough citations to satisfy WP:NEVENT. A lot of coverage from independent and reliable resources to justify notability of the event. NarangD (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with NarangD and yes Draft:2021 lynching and killing of dalit by farm protestors can be deleted but Singhu Border Lynching (2021) has now been placed back into mainspace as it clearly satisifies WP:GNG. I have also reviewed it again. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think duplicate articles of the same event count as multiple sources for GNG. If this is the criteria then every murder event will need one article. Quoting again. "This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:ONEEVENT for more information." It should be submitted as per the rule and a reviewer need to approve. As of now it has already been declined at its duplicate location. Venkat TL (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Venkat TL Noone is suggesting that duplicate articles are counting as multiple sources. Please read my message above carefully. We are discussing the notability of this single article now, Draft:Singhu Border Lynching (2021). Please try not to get sidetracked. As I said: Draft:2021 lynching and killing of dalit by farm protestors can be deleted You need to stop reverting the article to draft immediately and instead participate in the discussion until the matter is resolved. You are currently Wikipedia:Edit warring and in violation of WP:3RR. You haven't addressed my earlier point of all of the references provided are reliable secondary sources (The Indian Express, Tribune India, India Today, Hindustan Times and The Economic Times provide five of the seven sources). The fact that five major news outlets gave reasonable coverage suggest notability. Would you agree with this point? Hughesdarren (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hughesdarren Please explain how I am in violation of 3RR? See my note below. And, in my comment above I am talking about Duplicate news articles, not duplicate wikipedia articles. When I said "source" obviously I am referring to news articles and not wikipedia articles. Venkat TL (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Narang and Hughesdarren, You keep repeating multiple source, multiple source, without noting that they are all reporting the exact same event. Do you believe that every incident that gets published in 5 newspapers should have a wikipedia article? Is that enough? If such a rule exists then please point me to that rule.Venkat TL (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter that they are reporting the same event. The fact is there are at least five separate reliable sources, that are indeppendent of it, that have reported on it. See WP:GNG. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you do agree that every incident that gets published in 5 newspapers should have a wikipedia article. This is in clear violation of wikipedia rule about Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS linked above. The event must demonstrate a lasting significance. So far it has not been demonstrated, and until that is clearly demonstrated, this should not be moved from draft. May be, you can read the Wikipedia:Notability (events). Specially the part about Lasting effects. Venkat TL (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that every incident reported by 5 newspapers should have a wikipedia article. I am still saying that there are multiple separate, independent, reliable sources, which in turn satisifes WP:GNG. The heading of this thread is notability, which is why I want to discuss this point. Once this is settled I'm happy to discuss other concerns. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In your first comment above you listed those 5 newspapers reporting this news of murder and claiming that these are sufficient for notability. In my understanding of the Notability (Events) this is not enough, but you believe otherwise. Venkat TL (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

The continual reversion from draft to mainspace must stop now. We need to discuss this here on this talk page before any further reverts happen. User:Venkat TL has received a warning already. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hughesdarren While we are discussing this matter on the talk page of the Draft talk:Singhu Border Lynching (2021), another editor is moving the page around. Do you approve that type of behavior? Don't you think you should be posting this notice message on the talk page of the editor who is moving the page in the middle of the discussion? Venkat TL (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied to this comment already on your page, please let's stick to commenting on the article talk page. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should follow this advice first of all, since it was you, who diverted from the discussion here to post on my talk page. Venkat TL (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hughesdarren, maybe you could unreview pages when you see that there is no apparent consensus over whether it is notable or not? That too when the article is about a crime and explicitly names a non notable individual as the accused based on breaking news coverage. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tayi Arajakate The page is no longer reviewed when it goes to draft. I'm more than happy for the names of the accused to be removed as per the policy. The individuals are certainly not notable but the event certainly is as it has received significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's very clear whether this event is notable or not. WP:EVENTCRIT states that, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." It would at the least require in-depth (e.g, feature piece articles which this lacks) and sustained coverage (the event is too recent for us to ascertain whether this is going to happen, so WP:CRYSTALBALL applies and a draft seems alright). Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hughesdarren has now started the discussion on notability on this second thread. Should I reply here now? Can we all please stick to one thread, the one above for one topic about notability? Venkat TL (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hughesdarren asked me to take a look at this. I have no view on the notability of this draft, but am commenting on process as an uninvolved administator. WP:DRAFTIFY makes it clear that draftification is not a backdoor route to deletion. Any editor in good standing who believes that a draft is ready for article space can move it there; anyone feeling that the subject isn't notable should then nominate it for deletion via AfD, and make their argument there; the discussion that follows will establish a consensus on whether or not we retain the article. That is the process to follow, rather than edit warring over whether this should be in article or draft space. So - the author is free to move this back into article space, whereupon anyone in this discussion may immediately nominate it for deletion. I don't want to see anyone draftifying it again.
As an aside, the text needs work (but that isn't something that affects the notability concerns). Subjective descriptions like 'gruesome' and 'brutal' should not be used in Wikipedia's voice - the only place I'd expect to see words like that used would be in an attributed quote. Girth Summit (blether) 13:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your comments. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit understood. Can you also please clarify if this method that you have elaborated can be used as backdoor route to evade rejection of submission of the draft as was done here, see Draft:2021 lynching and killing of dalit by farm protestors Venkat TL (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it still the correct method, even in these circumstances. Except in certain very specific circumstances (e.g. where there is a topic ban in place, or with PAID contributions), the use of the AfC process is optional. A rejected draft can be moved into article space by its author without further discussion, whereupon normal deletion processes should be followed (whether that's by CSD or AfD would depend upon the nature of the draft). Girth Summit (blether) 13:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Venkat TL, I think keeping it as a draft is the best solution because by the time an AfD would end this might actually become notable depending on if it keeps receiving coverage but for the next time, when you see someone is reverting it back then I would recommend just nominating the article for AfD and asking the NPP reviewer to unreview the page (note unreviewed articles in the mainspace are not search engine indexed, same as a draft), instead of repeatedly moving it back and forth, which doesn't lead to any resolution. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that we should wait to see the lasting coverage. After making this a draft, I started this talk page thread to discuss the notability. I was not expecting that the other editor, instead of replying will just move the page around. Venkat TL (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point, Venkat TL, is that your move to draft was bold. I have no view on whether or not it was the right call, but if another editor disagreed with it they are entitled to revert it, at which point you should not have reinstated your move without discussion. As for where that discussion should happen - article and draft talk pages are for discussions about improving the article; discussions about whether or not the subject is notable, and therefore whether or not the article ought to exist in article space, take place at AfD. Girth Summit (blether) 14:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Venkat TL (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the deletion of this article: Singhu border lynching (2021) for the following reasons: There seems to be a malicious attempt to DELETE and hide from Wikipedia, a widely reported and discussed and one of the MOST Horrific MURDER in India in recent times, a brutal lynching and murder of an discriminated and protected class Dalit youth Lakhbir Singh, who was murdered in broad day light by a group of radicals. The page created by me and reviewed (& approved) by Hughesdarren : Was reverted to Deletion Draft by a Venkat TL TL giving a very vague reason that Wikipedia is not News, and canot be used for a single event, while there are thousands of Wiki pages on Rapes, Murders and Lynching of Single events. Some examples of similar single events in India with Wiki pages

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Hathras_gang_rape_and_murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hyderabad_gang_rape_and_murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balrampur_gang_rape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakhimpur_Kheri_massacre There are pages on very relatively smaller events also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_snakebite_murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Rohini_Court_Shooting

Considering all this, I don't see any logical reason to delete this page, other than to hide a Major Story from Wiki due to malicious intentions. This is a crucial incident widely reported in WP:RS sources in which a person from a protected class "Dalit" has been brutaly lynched and murdered. I hope you can revert this article back and save from deletion. Dhy.rjw (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse other users of malicious intentions on article talk pages. This page should only be used to discuss ways to improve the article. If you believe other editors are acting in bad faith, you should present your evidence at WP:ANI. Arguments about whether or not to retain this article should be based on content and sourcing, rather than intent, and they should take place at the AfD discussion. Girth Summit (blether) 07:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Venkat TL has started reverting my additions of properly sourced content. Instead of reading the references and asking relevant questions, he asks "says who" ! no words ! Rob108 (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Rob108[reply]

Badly phrased and without attribution statement[edit]

@Rob108 Please do not restore this content without discussion here. It is edit warring. You have written that they are known for hand chopping? according to whom? how many hand choppings have they done? Why are you saying it in Wikipedia voice? Please discuss these questions first and explain the relevance of adding it here. Venkat TL (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request move 29 October 2021[edit]

This article should be move to 2021 Singhu border lynching per WP:NCE and WP:NCCAPS. Eevee01(talk) 06:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, The capitatilsation of border and lynching is not necessary. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I have moved the article. Eevee01(talk) 04:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Singhu_border_lynching&oldid=1196890569"