Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian WhatsApp lynchings

Indian WhatsApp lynchings

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Indian WhatsApp lynchings (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)

The article claims that the "spate of lynchings commenced in May 2017". Now in these 3 years, there have about 123,000 murders in India and apparently 47 of them involved the use of this cross-platform messaging facility. The article also distracts from the subject in question and there are 23 instances of "fake" news, for which Fake news in India exists. Majority of the incidents are easily non-notable and fails WP:LISTN. Since Wikipedia is not a a news channel and it is not a collection of indiscriminate information, there is no reason to keep this article. Tessaracter (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Tessaracter (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Topic does not violate WP:NOT, the topic has significant coverage in India and world, viz. WP, The Atlantic, BBC, NYT, CNN, rather google search shows how significant the topic is and passes WP:LISTN. Does not violate WP:IINFO in any way, the whole argument seems to be moot. Drat8sub (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, for several reasons:

1. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply to this article. This part of WP:NOT addresses a few problematic types of content: massive data dumps, unexplained piles of statistics, and excessive non-encyclopedic coverage of creative works. The common thread here is that the "indiscriminate data" is non-encyclopedic. This is clearly not the case here. The article, before presenting the list, clearly establishes the issue, its scope, and its context. Then, the list provides more details on individual incidents. This is not "indiscriminate" - the list provides useful details for those looking for more info about what tends to happen in the incidents and those looking for info about specific incidents. Furthermore, it is a useful supplement to the introductory prose - the prose explains the broader significance of the issue, and the list provides details to give the reader a better, more granular understanding of what these attacks tend to entail, as well as a better sense of the sheer scope of the issue. The prose is the forest; the list is the trees. They both complement each other. Furthermore, even if the list were non-encyclopedic, that alone would not justify deletion of the article. It is not a stand-alone list, and the rest of the article, while short, could stand on its own two feet perfectly fine.
2. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to this article. That part of WP:NOT begins with this explanation: Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. What NOTNEWS applies to is run-of-the-mill news coverage, as well as other related violations of Wikipedia principles such as original reporting, which violates WP:OR. That is not the case here - this article is a very well sourced encyclopedic treatment of a widespread and well-recognized sociocultural phenomenon. It is not written in news style; it is not a diary.
3. The nominator's mention of the total number of murders is a red herring and should be disregarded. An analogous example helps illustrate this. The US averages about 15,000 murders a year; generally about 20 of those are from school shootings. Should we delete all our extensive coverage of US school shootings? Of course not; that's an absurd suggestion. The issue of school shootings is a very well covered one.
4. The topic is extremely notable; that should not even be a question here - here are a few of many, many. many examples of international, independent coverage in reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. It's important to note that all of these articles, even if they use individual cases as examples to introduce the wider societal issue, focus on the issue as a whole, not just individual cases. Clearly, this pattern of WhatsApp lynchings is notable.
5. WP:LISTN does not apply here either; in fact, it makes the case for this article's inclusion. The guideline states that notability of lists [...] is based on the group. It further states that Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. Since the overall topic is clearly notable, the criteria are met. Furthermore, because the list is not a stand-alone list, the guideline doesn't even apply to the article as a whole.
6. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no limit on size; there isn't some fixed number of printed volumes that everything needs to fit inside. Thus the nominator's concern about this article "distracting" from the Fake news in India article is not an issue. Furthermore, that article focuses on the wider topic of fake news in India as a whole, in the many diverse forms it takes. The WhatsApp killings are only briefly discussed, and this phenomenon is clearly notable enough to warrant a standalone article.

The article covers a highly notable topic, is thoroughly well sourced, has a well-defined scope for list inclusion, and is written in encyclopedic style, not news style. Hence the article must be kept. CJK09 (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes this article includes massive data dumps, unexplained piles of statistics, thus it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
• WP:NOTNEWS applies to the article because it largely depends on the information which has no lasting impact. I know there is some essential information here but it does not warrant a separate article.
• The topic is notable or not, you need to see WP:NOPAGE. Yoonadue (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: The Evening Standard, New York Times and Guardian articles clearly demonstrate notability of the subject, and the many local news sources referenced in the article give credence to the detailed information. I think the sources that CJK09 pointed to should be added to the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Fake news in India, per WP:NOPAGE. What I am seeing here is the media's interpretation of 2018 Karbi Anglong lynching as "Whatsapp lynching", which may have popularized this term, but overall the sources including those provided by CJK09 are mainly dealing with Fake news in India. I have done cleanup of the article, and removed the content which was unrelated to "WhatsApp" and now I am seeing that the article looks much smaller than what it did before. Yoonadue (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as a more viable option per above. Currently, the article has been designed in order to put blame on WhatsApp even though there are a number of other means used for provoking killings. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• I was about to vote for delete since a stand alone article isn't warranted for barely 10 incidents where WhatsApp was used, but I am fine with the proposed merge. desmay (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Fake News in India is far too broad a topic for this to be folded into it comfortably. There are enough sources to justify a standalone article, as CJK09 demonstrates above. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Not enough content to dedicate a stand-alone article. If we were to only rely on amount of sources for proving notability then we can also create a Indian Instagram murders [6][7], Tiktok murders in India,[8][9][10] and more unnecessary articles, but per WP:NOPAGE all of this is unnecessary. The Guardian itself deals with Fake news in India than particularly target WhatsApp over the incidents. Azuredivay (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)