Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Fatehpur Violence

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 keep. No prejudice towards potential future discussions of renaming or merging. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Fatehpur Violence

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

Doesn't meet the criteria for Notability Zayeem ^(talk) 15:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 22. Snotbot t • c » 16:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Oppose: The event has significant impact on the Bengali Hindus in Bangladesh, as it constituted a gross human rights abuse similar to the 2012 Ramu violence. The event was widely by the Bangladeshi press and media. Considering factors such as Geographical scope, Depth of coverage and Diversity of sources, this article should not be deleted. BengaliHindu (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was no way near to the Ramu violence. It didn't have much news coverage by the media, especially the electronic media totally refrained from covering this. No diversity of sources as only few newspapers covered it, besides it shows different things like violence in Assam or Bihar when searched in Google. The article surely doesn't meet the criteria of notability to be in Wikipedia. Zayeem ^(talk) 17:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try this - Satkhira violence. It will show reports from the Financial Express and other Bangladeshi news sites. The title may have been 2012 Satkhira violence.BengaliHindu (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is not a small incident at all. This incident was covered by notable Bangladeshi newspapers like Prothom Alo, Janakantha, The Independent etc. at least for two weeks. Ssitaa1814 (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)— Ssitaa1814 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Oppose: Don't throttle truth and freedom of speech. It will be a great disservice to humanity. Krishnendudelhi (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)— Krishnendudelhi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (Nonminator's vote): The news was only covered by few newspapers and renowned local English newspapers like The Daily Star (Bangladesh) showed no interest on the incident. Besides, as mentioned earlier, the electronic media (TV channels) totally refrained from covering this incident. Not to mention the international media also didn't show any interest. Surely it doesn't meet the WP:DIVERSE. It doesn't meet the WP:INDEPTH and WP:GEOSCOPE as well since no analysis about the incident was found in TV news specialty shows, books or in feature length articles in major news magazines and it doesn't have any significant impact over a region or a community. It doesn't pass the WP:EFFECT also. Zayeem ^(talk) 05:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not true that The Daily Star did not show any interest. On 7 April, it reported that the then Railways Minister Suranjit Sengupta had urged Home Minister Sahara Khatun to visit Satkhira - Suranjit asks Shahara to visit Satkhira. WP:DIVERSE doesn't explicitly specify that an event in order to be notable has to be covered by the electronic media. Further there is a The Daily Star op-ed piece which has analysed the recent instances of minority repressions in Bangladesh, including that of Fatehpur, Satkhira - The minorities of Bangladesh, which satisfies WP:INDEPTH criteria. BengaliHindu (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:DIVERSE recommends that an incident should have significant national or international coverage and with being covered by only few local newspapers, this incident doesn't pass the WP:DIVERSE criterion for sure. Besides, the article "The minorities of Bangladesh" mostly analyses the 2012 Ramu violence or the overall condition of minorities in Bangladesh, even though because of its similarity with the topic, 2012 Fatehpur Violence also got a little thematic mention there but the incident was not actually analyzed by the daily as required to pass the WP:INDEPTH criterion. Zayeem ^(talk) 09:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kmzayeem - I struck your "Delete" since your AfD nomination counts as your one iVote. You can comment as often as you want, but only iVote once. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, that's why I had also written "(Nominator's vote)" beside "Delete". --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose : Coverage or non-coverage by a certain newspaper house does not prove/negate an incident. Leading Bengali dailies pratham alo and janakantha has provided widespread coverage to this incident with far reaching consequences. Unknown.citizen12 (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)— Unknown.citizen12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I'm not talking about only a specific newspaper, I said only few newspapers covered it and no interest was shown by the electronic media (TV channels), hence, it definitely lacks WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH. Zayeem ^(talk) 12:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is one of the most significant incidents that has shaken Bangladesh in the recent years. This article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazla Rabbi (talk • contribs) 14:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC) — Fazla Rabbi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Most Bangladeshis are totally unaware of the incident and as mentioned earlier, it didn't get enough media attention as well, so can't really agree with your comment. Zayeem ^(talk) 17:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just because the state media of Bangladesh doesn't report on the persecution of its minorities, it does not mean it is not notable. If the Turkish mass media does not report on the persecution of Armenians or Kurds, it does not mean that the persecution is not notable at all. The same with Tibetans and everyone else. It was also reported outside of Bangladesh, this article from Jihad Watch reports on it citing Indian media. http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/br0nc0s/managed-mt/mt-search.cgi?search=Satkhira&IncludeBlogs=1&limit=20 It would also be possible to merge the 3 articles into an article on Religious conflicts in Bangladesh in 2012 --Trphierth (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nobody here is talking about state media. The point is, the incident doesn't pass the WP:DIVERSE criterion since only few newspapers covered it. As mentioned mentioned in my earlier comments, it also lacks other criteria such as WP:INDEPTH, WP:EFFECT and WP:GEOSCOPE, hence the article is definitely not eligible to be in wikipedia. Besides, the link which you posted talks about something else not this incident. The article should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. --Zayeem ^(talk) 05:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, the persecution was reported at least in some newspapers, both nationally and internationally, and you cannot expect books already when it just happened this year. And you are the only one claiming that it was not reported widely in the Bangladeshi press. But even if you read every newspaper, which you probably don't, I would need to know from a more neutral observer. (Bangladeshi media is ranked at 136th out of 178 countries on the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, which in some cases should also be taken into account.)

Also, I take objection to your comment on the Bangladesh notice board, because you seem to imply that you know just from their edits if they are Bangladeshi are not, and you seem to imply that editors writing from the point of view of minorities in Bangladesh are not really Bangladeshi editors or that only right-wing Muslims can be Bangladeshi editors. It is surprising that nobody has commented on this at the notice board. --Trphierth (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people may find "you don't read newspaper" type comment little bit excessive. Stay clam and continue! --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article appears to have a topic that will be able to meet the notability threshold. I have reviewed the talk page of the nominator in this AfD and he appears to have a history of disruptive edits in favor of his views regarding his country. However, the article itself needs a lot of work. Presently it reads as a news report. I would encourage the proponents of this article to do some more work on it to make it more encyclopedic in tone and content. Voting is not enough-- you need to make the article MEET THE QUALITY of an encyclopedic article-- that is the best thing you can do to save it from deletion now and in the future. OfficeGirl (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hope, next time when you post, you will keep the WP:NPA, WP:AGF policies in mind. Besides, many disruptive editors tend to hide their obnoxious history in wikipedia by archiving it while I haven't archived yet, so there is no logic in judging an editor through his/her talkpage. As for the article, I've already mentioned some reasons why the topic is not notable at all. --Zayeem ^(talk) 05:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are two write ups, Daily Star April 6, 2012 and New Nation April 6, 2012. They both are on the same day (April 6). The Wikipedia article indicates that things happened around 31 March 2012. The six day delay in news coverage may mean a low reliable source interest in the topic. Also, if there was news coverage in May or June or later in 2012 following up the event, the aftermath, etc. that would give more perspective and evidence at least some persistence in reliable source coverage on the topic. There are no reliable sources that support calling the topic "Fatehpur Violence." The lack of evidence of reliable sources giving a name to an event also shows low reliable source interest in the topic. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and without evidence of sufficient reliable source interest in a topic, that would put Wikipedia as an originator of that interest, which is not what Wikipedia is. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant event and per OfficeGirl! --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Titodutta (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Comment: OfficeGirl simply said that the topic is notable without giving any logical reason. Please elaborate the reasons. --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OfficeGirl had three points 1) the topic meet the notability threshold 2) the article has a disruptive edit history 3) article needs improvement. On 1, it is so. Though, it may not been covered by all leading newspapers of both countries, at least few newspapers (links above and in reference section in the article) have covered it. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your elaboration. 1) It was covered by few newspapers, but was not covered by the other newspapers, the electronic media or the international media. Hence, it fails to pass the WP:DIVERSE criterion. The incident also doesn't have any significant impact on the community (according to sources) thus it fails to meet the WP:GEOSCOPE. It also fails to meet the WP:INDEPTH since it has not been analyzed in books, feature length articles in major news magazines, and TV news specialty shows. It also fails to meet WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:EFFECT. Considering these points, the topic is definitely not notable at all. 2) OfficeGirl actually said that after reviewing the nominator's talkpage (my talkpage), she found that the nominator (me) has a history of disruptive edits, she wasn't talking about the article and the article also doesn't have any disruptive edit in its history. 3) The article surely needs improvement but I don't think it can ever be an encyclopedic article, since the article is already 6 months old, still not up to the mark. --Zayeem ^(talk) 13:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this incidence has been covered by few newspapers as main topic then it can be kept. Depending on "I like it", "I don't like it", "I can't publish it (even if it is a news) because it will be against my sponsors", "I must publish it (even if it is not a news) because it praises our community" many incidences are covered/not covered in newsmedia. I read mainly Bengali and English newspapers. And in Indian newspapers it is not very uncommon to find a news being covered in first page of a newspaper and missing in another one. If you have heard about Singur conflict, Nandigram violence etc you may find different opinions in different newspapers. I hope it is more or less same in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka too. I don't expect all Bangladeshi newspapers will cover the same event in same tone.

I have been working in some Bangladesh related article. I wish to do some work on Bangladeshi theatre, I have started writing one or two articles too, for example Bahurupi Natya Sangstha. Well, when I work on Bangladesh related articles I mainly depend on 1) The Daily Star (as you can see in the linked article too I have added a bunch of Daily Star citations) 2) BDNews24. And a Daily Star article like this forces me to ponder on the subject! --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC) typo correction signed --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand the criteria. It doesn't matter to who the dailies belong or what point of view they posses while judging the notability of an event. Notable events are covered equally by the whole media, take 2012 Ramu violence for example. Besides, the source also mainly focused on the traffic gridlock caused by the demonstration by the students. And even though the incident is covered by few dailies, it's still not sufficient to pass the WP:DIVERSE. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Initially I was not so sure about this one. However, I see the incidence has been covered in some newspapers, and had some impact in the vicinity as well as far places like in the capital. We should keep in mind that in the Indian subcontinent (probably all over the world!) the newspaper coverage is often influenced by the nature of the news and the publication group, as explained by Tito above. Perhaps more so in the Islamic nation of Bangladesh where the influence of fundamentalists are even more. So, after going through the coverage, I feel this meets the notability criteria. --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Dwaipayanc (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Comment: Well, as replied earlier, it doesn't matter by who the dailies are influenced, notable events are equally covered by the whole media as it happened with 2012 Ramu violence. Besides, as mentioned earlier, the incident also fails to pass the WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:EFFECT. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dwaipayan.Shyamsunder (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Shyamsunder (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Nobody canvassed me. What made you think so. Shyamsunder (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I replied to Dwaipayan, it doesn't matter whether the dailies are influenced by a group or not, notable topics are covered by the whole media no matter whom it belongs. --Zayeem ^(talk) 06:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drift: Exlanation demanded

I demand to know what makes an editor (who does not care to sign after expressing a concern) that I have been canvassed here (I can see he has added the same template for two other editors too, Dwaipayanc and Shyamsundar)? This editor has been a subject of India Noticeboard for a long time now. See report one, and the latest report. There may be more reports, I don't know! If I have been asked by someone to vote. I should have voted in all nominations. I take this as a personal attack! --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to sign after the canvass template, however editors can get to know who added the template by watching the history. I have added the template since it seems the participants who are voting for Keep belong to a particular group and have a common and predetermined viewpoint which might be a result of Votestacking or Stealth canvassing. It is also to be mentioned that editors belonging to a particular group were invited to take part in these AfDs through some noticeboards here and here. --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your tongue if you can not control it. Reporting in a noticeboard without mentioning anything to vote or not to vote is not necessarily canvassing. And there he linked 4-5 articles, I have voted in one. If you see that version of India Noticeboard you'll find my reply in each and every post of that page. How does it become a canvassing? I participate in such discussions every day. Right now I have at least 2 more issues which are either reported to ANI or admins are handling it If you see my contribution list, I am a regular AFD participant and have given few more votes in AFDs in last few days too!

And even if I consider it mentioning articles in a noticeboard is canvassing, what is this? You reported the same thing in Bangladesh noticeboard! There might be more similar posts, I have not checked. Should I go ahead and add "This user is canvassing"? Forget it, I am not gonna do so.

About signing canvas template, it is a common sense- when you read "an editor has expressed some concern", you immediately ask "Who?". So, signing should be a good etiquette here!

In this very recent sockpuppet investigation you made the SPI admin "fed up" who felt it was a "a gigantic waste of time" and "You're clearly not getting the picture." So we are now. In this AFD you have cited WP:DIVERSE in your every second or third line. What do you think? We are not reading the discussion so that you need to keep repeating the same thing again and again (and again)... The SPI admin was fed up! So, I am! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And more, this is somewhat weird! If you see above, I have criticized someone since I felt he was talking rudely with you! If I am invited here to oppose you why should I post in your favor there? If I am remembering correctly, I added some positive comments in one of your band related articles which was in danger at that moment!

The word I was expecting from you here is a simple "Sorry"! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC) pen slip correction signed --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, by tagging the template I've expressed concern that you have been canvassed here by some other editor who wants to distort the consensus here, that means the accusation is against that editor who has canvassed you, I'm not accusing you, which is why I felt surprised when you said that you are feeling attacked because of that template. Secondly, you need to understand the meaning of canvassing, the tone of the posts here and here is simply indicating inappropriate canvassing and the posts are clearly inviting other editors to take part in the AfDs. About the sock puppetry investigation, well it was because I was unable to show proper evidence but you might have also noticed that the admin has also declared those user ids as meat puppets who also took part in this AfD. And the notice which I reported in Bangladesh noticeboard is definitely not about this article or any AfD, hence it can't be termed as canvassing. You don't want but I would request you to check if I've made any canvassing since I know I haven't made anything which violate the policies of wikipedia. And, yes, I have cited WP:DIVERSE and many other links quite often that's because everyone here is raising the same reasons again and again without even considering that I've already countered those reasons earlier. This indicates that many editors joined this discussion with a predetermined point of view. You have expressed that you are feeling personally attacked but it's only me who has actually been attacked here several times, pointing at my past experience. I am never shy of seeking apology, but here, I don't think I've made or posted anything against the policies. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:01, 4 November 2012 (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.