Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Rawalpindi riots

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 delete. Considering that those who want to keep the article do so only weakly... Sandstein 09:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Rawalpindi riots

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

Wikipedia is not a newpaper. Originally PROD'ed with the reason that the event is too recent, and too much a part of the larger issue of sectarianism in Pakistan to determine whether this individual event will have any lasting significance on its own. The original author removed the PROD with the edit summary "this is not a normal case of sectarian tension, article will update in the days to come as mentioned already" but no significant updates appear to be forthcoming. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - yes it is too recent to evaulate if it had had any long term effect.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure I understand the basis for this "weak keep" !vote. BabbaQ admits that the event is to recent to evaluate whether it will have any long term impact, which means that it does not qualify for inclusion under WP:NOTNEWS. So why keep it? (As an aside, the fact that there has been no update to the article since its first creation to show even any immediate impact suggests that long term impact is probably not forthcoming.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It also seems to be just "one riot" not riots. SarahStierch (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A riot that results in 9 deaths is move than trivial, I know they're rather frequent, but that still doesn't make them trivial or individually unimportant. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title of the article suggests there were several riots in Rawalpindi this year, but apparently there was one riot on one particaular day. It's a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS, this would be a minor item in a newspaper. The number of deaths is irrelevant, if no historical notability can be shown. No info has been brought forward showing relevant background or consequences, so it will remain a run-of-the-mill event. A paragraph about the incident has been added to Sectarian violence in Pakistan which is enough. Kraxler (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources I can find are within two days of the event, making this fall squarely into WP:NOTNEWS territory. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:40, 21 December 2013 (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.