Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Patan riots

2017 Patan riots

2017 Patan riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Patan riots Stats)

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

A non-notable random incident that lacks notability per WP:NOTNEWS. Incident was reported for less than 7 days[1] and most of the news website basically plagiarised other. It was just like 100s of other same incidents that occur[2][3] every year. We don't need article for each trivial information. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete only a few first-hand news reports. Fails WP:LASTING. Lorstaking (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep: This riot was covered well into late April and even July due to claims that it was a premeditated attack rather than general WP:ROUTINE communalism. Also, keep in mind that this also probably got more coverage in Hindi newspapers than English-speaking ones due to it taking place in India. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

But never again after April. Your source is an unreliable personal website which is saying nothing different than the news sources that covered event for a couple of days. Language card cannot be played here since all Indian articles use English language sources. Looks like you are only 2 of the editors of this article. If this article is any important then why you have to speculate and make claims without substance about this article which is inherently non notable. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

So, how long it has to be discussed? Riots usually get coverage for few months only. For instance 2015 Nadia riots or 2016 Kaliachak riots etc. AltNews.in has been widely cited for busting right-wing propaganda. We can discuss its acceptance as RS/N. --Jionakeli (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't let me point you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Still an unreliable opinion website. Riots don't go discussed only for few months, they can be discussed for decades. Compare 1984 anti-Sikh riots with this subject that was discussed only for number of days, you would think that this article should be rather speedy deleted. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per nom it is just another violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Lack of coverage in independent sources and already lost relevance only some days after the incident took place. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as per WP:NOTNEWS and has no WP:LASTING impact.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep WP:INDEPTH coverage over a span of several months[4] with WP:LASTING impact[5] being discussed in both National & International media certainly makes it a notable event! Jionakeli (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

So we have got the creator of the article defending the existence of this article by misrepresenting sources and policies. There is no discussion in any of the sources, just two months old articles trying to interlink their many articles in one article. Fails WP:INDEPTH, WP:LASTING, WP:NOTNEWS. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You could have phrased that in other way. Ok, Mr. 2 times blocked sock please give diffs of my edits misrepresenting sources and policies. These[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] are all WP:INDEPTH. Do you think this[13] The Guardian article published after 6 months of this riots was only for interlinking heir many articles in one article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jionakeli (talk • contribs) 04:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Misrepresenting my block log won't turn your article notable. Socks are never unblocked unless the block was a mistake and that was my case as well. Now back to topic, which you have been avoiding. None of your sources are making valid description of this non-notable incident that died out under few days. Just copying more links of news websites that have basically plagiarised each other is not going to help you either. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Stop taking this as personal! Its not about you or me. Its about whether this topic is notable for inclusion or not. That incident was covered widely through out all media in India including The Guardian I gave. There might be more. When you said "links of news websites that have basically plagiarised each other" do you have a RS for that? or you are accusing these national media of plagiarism? Jionakeli (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)