Talk:Delta Meghwal rape case

Redirect

I redirect the article to Crime in India, because this incident was reported only for a couple of days, it has been never reported or looked upon. It is not notable and having a stand-alone article such subject becomes a bad idea because of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Capitals00 (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I have updated the article to address these concerns. Inlinetext (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here. This is not a routine news event. It has significant and continuous coverage and secondary analysis which I have provided citations of. Inlinetext (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00 and MBlaze Lightning: have disagreed with you. Events involved zero amount of notable people and it was reported as just another case. It fails notability because Wikipedia is not news. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:VICTIM is satisfied now (ie. after my edits) hence notablity is established since the article is currently very well documented with serious secondary and persistent coverage. qv "For victims, ... The victim consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. Furthermore, any redirect for BLP1E would neccessarily be to an article which contains a sub-article or substantial coverage of this event, which is not the case here. FYI, Caps00 and Mblaze have not yet disgreed with my comments on this talk page. Inlinetext (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Capitals00 and D4iNa4. Being mentioned in the media for a couple of days doesn't make it encyclopedic or something to have an article about. It lacks enduring mainstream coverage to surpass the WP:NOTNEWS policy: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." —MBlaze Lightning ^T 10:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Media coverage started April 2016 and ended June 2016. So the subject is not notable. It would be better for editors to focus on improving the Crime in India article than to build and maintain this article. Jrheller1 (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

If you think the subject is not notable then you should nominate it for deletion. You need consensus to replace it with a redirect. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated for deletion, with suggestion that it be redirected to "Crime in India". Jrheller1 (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. This way we will get a durable consensus one way or the other, it's for the best. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Prachi Patil source

I have removed the Prachi Patil /Journal of Social Inclusion source here because doubts were expressed about it at the AfD. Something to do with the fact that anyone can create a subscription and post stuff, even though it claims to be peer-reviewed. Regardless, it isn't necessary because I added some material from the Hindustan Times article that reflects the allegations of discrimination.

I do note that the Patil source appears to have been published remarkably soon after the alleged rape/murder. Although I generally deal in historical matters on Wikipedia, I suspect it is uncommon to find truly academic sources that discuss in detail what amount to contemporaneous events: its comments may thus have no more weight than, say, a newspaper op-ed. - Sitush (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep the reference out, all it does is mention the victims name. The source instead addresses caste violence, which is too broad for one case. —JJBers 17:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's unreliable...—JJBers 02:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see why that's not a reliable source - it has an editorial board and is peer reviewed. What's the problem? Fyddlestix (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if it is proven reliable, it isn't useful in anyways, as all it does in mention the article's subject name as a example. —JJBers 18:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

PDF File on a website. This seems to be at least more well written, granted from the same source, also adds more info. —JJBers 18:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, did you read the AfD? Did you note my opening comments here? If you really want to press this issue then take it to WP:RSN. But, given that our article already mentions the claim, that would be rather pointless. Dalit activism is rife on Wikipedia and there are literally thousands of open-access journals that do not meet our RS standards. Add into that mix the fairly obvious fact that Inlinetext is being opaque regarding their prior involvement then the conclusion must be that it is at best an unnecessary source. That JJBers is basically clueless, although arguing from the opposite position, doesn't make things better. It really is not a point worth pushing and those that would do are usually SJWs, which is rarely a good sign. - Sitush (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)